1 wp7606-10 dmt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7606 OF 2010 Shri Krishna Majur Co-op. Society Ltd., Ichalkaranji through it’s Chairman. .. Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. Prajakt M. Arjunwadkar for petitioner. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP., for respondent nos. 1 to 5. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. NOVEMBER 29, 2010. P.C. We have heard Mr. Arjunwadkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 25.6.2004 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune (Respondent No. 5). 2. The said order has been passed under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The land owners approached the Commissioner seeking permission to transfer the land to Shri Dilip Mangilal Bajaj for 2 wp7606-10 agricultural purposes and the application has been allowed on certain conditions. 3. The petitioner states that the land has been reserved only for mining purposes. He was granted permission by the Collector for quarrying on the part of the land for a period of five years which expired some time in April, 2007. He thereafter submitted an application for further lease and the application is not being decided because the land has been allotted to someone else. 4. At the first place, the explanation furnished by the petitioner to approach us to challenge the order dated 25.6.2004 is not convincing. Secondly, the petitioner has no title to the land in Gat No. 318/3 and thirdly, only because his application is pending with the Collector for the last about three years, cannot be a reason to entertain his challenge to the order dated 25.6.2004 and that too in this writ petition. If we consider the reliefs prayed for, at the first instance, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 25.6.2004 passed in favour of respondent nos. 6 to 8 and secondly he is praying for directions against the Collector to decide his pending application and for an injunction against respondent nos. 6 to 9 not 3 wp7606-10 to deal with the subject land in any way. 5. We are satisfied that the petitioner’s challenge to the impugned order dated 25.6.2004 cannot be entertained and he is an alien to the land covered by the said order, in addition to the fact that he has raised this challenge after six years. The petition is rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)