1 33-wp 15161-2019.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 15161 OF 2019 Chandrashekhar Ramchandra Kulkarni And Others .. Petitioners Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Others .. Respondents Mr. Amol G. Vasmatkar, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. S. G. Sangle, Advocate for Respondent No. 5. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ. DATE : 27th JULY, 2026. PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners, learned A.G.P. for the respondents-State and learned advocate for respondent No. 5. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that their father namely Ramchandra Baburao Kulkarni was the owner of house property bearing No. 238 of village Palshi (Bu.), Taluka Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad. After acquisition of the land/house alternative plots were given to the persons whose lands were acquired. However, in the list of the persons to whom plots are allotted no name of 2026:BHC-AUG:31468-DB 2 33-wp 15161-2019.odt father of the present petitioners is shown and instead of that plot No. 200 is allotted to one Ramrao Sarjerao. It is claimed that because of typographical error while recording the name of father of the petitioners they are deprived of the benefit of getting alternative plot under the rehabilitation scheme. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioners vehemently argued that, it is only because of typographical error the petitioners are deprived of the property. He thus submits that, it is necessary to direct the respondents to allot the plot under rehabilitation scheme. 4. The learned A.G.P. vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that, except mere statement of the petitioners there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners father’s name was wrongly typed. In fact, compensation is paid for the house which is around Rs. 2,59,732/- on 19.12.1997 to the owner of house No. 238. The learned A.G.P. thus submits that there is no scheme to grant alternative plot under the rehabilitation scheme. He submits that entire thing has taken place in the year 1997. The first representation by the present petitioners was made on 28.11.1997. Thereafter there is no communication of whatsoever 3 33-wp 15161-2019.odt nature is made till 16.10.2018. When the petitioners again issued communication on 16.10.2018 even the references given in the said letter are of the letter dated 04.07.2018 and 21.08.2018. He thus submits that the petitioners have approached the authorities and thereafter this Court after much delay and laches. He thus prays that the petition be dismissed. 5. The learned advocate Mr. Sangle for respondent No. 5 also opposes the petition. 6. It is seen that, in the communication dated 28.11.1997 a request is made to delete the name of one Bhagwan Krushnrao who appears to be uncle of the present petitioners. There is prayer made for giving only compensation. There is no any document shown to substantiate the case of the petitioners. Thus, this Court finds that, there is no case made out to allow the petition. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.) ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) P.S.B.