13-WP-3344-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3344 OF 2023 Rangrao Balu Ghatge Decd. Thr. Lhrs Bhimrao Rangrao Ghatge And Anr ...Petitioners Versus The Addi. Commissioner Revenue Division Pune And Ors ...Respondents —————— Mr. Abhijeet Desai i/b Mr. Nitin Deshpande, for the Petitioner. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH & NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. Date : AUGUST 20, 2026 P. C. : 1. By the present Petition, the Petitioners seek a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to implement the judgment and order of the Additional Collector dated 30th December, 1995, conduct a review of the allotment order dated 13th January, 1994, and restore the lands allotted to the Petitioners. 2. The case of the Petitioners is that Gat No. 59 was government land, which came to be allotted to the pre-decessors of the Petitioners by an order dated 27th October, 1947. On 24th February, 1986, the Tahsildar cancelled the allotment of the land and reserved the same for Arya Chavan 1 of 3 2026:BHC-KOL:7806-DB 13-WP-3344-2023.doc persons affected by the Kumbhi Irrigation Project. The order of the Tahsildar was challenged before the Sub-Divisional Officer, and the Appeal was rejected. Subsequently, an Appeal was filed before the Additional Collector, Kolhapur, which allowed the Appeal by an order dated 30th December, 1995. 3. By an order dated 13th January, 1994, a part of Gat No. 59 was allotted to Respondent Nos. 5 to 11. The Additional Collector directed the names of Respondent Nos. 5 to 11 to be shown in the cultivation column till a review by the Resettlement Branch. 4. It is contended that the Resettlement Branch ought to have cancelled the allotment dated 13th January, 1994, and restored the land bearing Gat No. 59 to the Petitioners. It is pleaded that though the allotment order was passed on 13th January, 1994, in favour of Respondent Nos. 5 to 11, the Revision Petition filed by them was decided on 29th July, 2019, and therefore, the Petitioners had to wait. 5. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, which are in consonance with the contents of the Petition, and we have perused the record. 6. The Petitioners claim restoration of the land based on the order dated 30th December, 1995, by which the order of Tahsildar reserving the land for allotment to persons affected by the Kumbhi Irrigation Project was set aside. It was open to the Petitioners at that stage to Arya Chavan 2 of 3 13-WP-3344-2023.doc adopt the necessary proceedings seeking restoration of the land. The explanation tendered is that on 13th January, 1994, part of the land was allotted to Respondent Nos. 5 to 11, and thereafter, a revision was filed by Respondent Nos. 5 to 11, which was decided on 29th July, 2019. As it is claimed that the revision was dismissed, it is now open to the Petitioners to approach the Additional Collector and seek restoration of the lands. This Court is also informed that a Civil Suit was filed by Respondent Nos. 5 to 11 seeking protection of possession, which has come to be partly decreed. There is no clarity as to whether an Appeal has been filed by the present Petitioners against the said decree. 7. The Additional Collector, if any such application has been made seeking restoration of the lands based on the order dated 30th December, 1995, to consider all materials on record, including the decree passed by the Civil Court, and thereafter, pass appropriate orders. 8. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] Arya Chavan 3 of 3