JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2876/2022 and Writ Petition (WP) No. 9109/2021, by which, the High Court has allowed WP No. 9109/2021 preferred by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein (in Civil Appeal arising out of WP No. 9109/2021) and has quashed and set aside orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 passed by the Deputy Collector, Pune Division and consequently dismissed WP No. 2876/2022, the original writ petitioner in WP No. 2876/2022 - contesting respondent No. 1 in WP No. 9109/2021 has preferred the present appeals.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under:-

2.1 That both, the appellant as well as contesting respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (in Civil Appeal arising out of WP No. 9109/2021) are claiming to be project affected persons whose lands were acquired for the public purpose. The Sub Divisional Officer allotted the land in question vide order dated 31.10.2018 in favour of respondent No. 1 herein (in Civil Appeal arising out of WP No. 9109/2021) – Kaluram Mahadu Jadhav @ Kalooram Mahadoo Jadhav under the Rehabilitation Scheme. Subsequently, the very land which was allotted to Kaluram Jadhav came to be allotted in favour of the appellant herein – Rajaram Deshmukh by the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Pune Division vide order dated 21.02.2019. Respondent No. 1 herein – Kaluram Jadhav, therefore, filed WP No. 3126/2019 before the High Court challenging order of allotment dated 21.02.2019 which was in favour of Rajaram Deshmukh – appellant herein. The Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the said writ petition, remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) and directed to pass a fresh order of allotment of the land in question expeditiously. That thereafter, after giving opportunity to both the parties including the co-owners of land held by Kaluram Jadhav, the Deputy Collector vide order dated 02.01.2020 passed a fresh order of allotment in favour of Rajaram Deshmukh – appellant herein and cancelled the order of allotment in favour of Kaluram Jadhav. Thereafter, consequential order dated 17.02.2020 came to be passed by the Deputy Collector in favour of Rajaram Deshmukh allotting the land in question. That thereafter the appellant herein initiated the proceedings before the Talathi to mutate his name in the revenue record as per the allotment order. However, as the name of the appellant was not mutated in the revenue record despite the allotment order, appellant herein Rajaram Deshmukh filed WP No. 2876/2022 before the High Court. Simultaneously, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed WP No. 9109/2021 before the High Court challenging the subsequent orders of allotment dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 in favour of the appellant herein. By the impugned common judgment and order the High Court has set aside orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 and remanded the matter to the Additional Collector solely on the ground that the Deputy Collector did not possess the powers to pass the orders of allotment and therefore, orders dated 02.01.2020 and 17.02.2020 are bad in law and wholly without jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court has allowed WP No. 9109/2021 preferred by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein and disposed of WP No. 2876/2022 preferred by the appellant herein. The impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court is the subject matter of the present appeals.

3. Shri Nikhil Goel learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 – Kaluram Jadhav (in Civil Appeal arising out of WP No. 9109/2021) has submitted that pursuant to the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court the Additional Collector has passed a fresh order which is in favour of respondent No. 1. It is submitted that at the relevant time the Deputy Collector exercised the powers of allotment as delegatee. However, subsequently and before orders da