JUDGMENT - Dr. (Mrs.) UPASANI, J. :---By this writ petition the petitioners are challenging the acquisition of land bearing Gat No. 215, admeasuring 48 Ares and Gat No. 244, admeasuring 72 Ares, notified for the purposes of resettlement of Dudhganga Project affected persons. 2.It is the contention of the petitioners that the deceased original petitioner No. 1 Malla Rama Khot, sold out the land Gat No. 97 admeasuring 1 H. 12 Ares under a Registered Sale Deed to one Gopal Beedkar on 22nd June 1976, prior to Notification under section 11 of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 and, therefore, the said land has to be excluded from their holdings. 3.The second contention of the petitioners is that the land Gat No. 245, admeasuring 1 H. 22 Ares is belonging to one Vasudeo Haripur Devasthan Trust and, therefore, the said land also cannot form part of the petitioners' holdings. 4.Under these circumstances, it is prayed by the petitioners that the impugned Notification No. LAQ/SR/30/83 dated 26th October 1983 issued under 4 and the impugned Notification No. LAQ/PR/1197/Kolhapur/87, dated 30-11-1986 issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the petitioners' notified land be quashed. 5.We have heard Mr. T.S. Ingale appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP, appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the averments made by the petitioners under oath in their petition. 6.The respondents have not filed any reply though Rule was issued on 25-1-1996. There is also no denial leave aside effective denial of the averments made by the petitioners. No record has been shown by the AGP appearing for the respondents. In fact the learned AGP fairly concedes to the position as put forward by the petitioners' Advocate. 7.In the absence of any reply forthcoming from the respondents to controvert the statements made by the petitioners on oath and on the background that the petitioners have given all the particulars with respect to the Sale Deed under which the petitioners sold out their land Gat. No. 97, admeasuring 1 H. 12 Ares by a Registered Sale Deed to Gopal Beedkar, there is no reason why the petitioners' statements should not be accepted. No. 97, admeasuring 1 H. 12 Ares by a Registered Sale Deed to Gopal Beedkar, there is no reason why the petitioners' statements should not be accepted. 8.As far as land belonging to Devasthan is concerned, the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1518 of 1987 by its judgment dated 12th November 1992 has held that the land belonging to Devasthan cannot be included or clubbed together with the holdings of the petitioner. 9.The respondents have thus added/included land in Gat No. 97 admeasuring 1 H. 12 Ares which the deceased petitioner had sold to Gopal Beedkar under a registered Sale Deed and also the land Gat No. 245 admeasuring 22 Ares belonging to Vasudeo Haripur Devasthan Trust. By reason of erroneous inclusion of this land and clubbing of the said land with the petitioners' holding, the petitioners' land was sought to be acquired as exceeding 8 acres under the provisions of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976. If the above mentioned land which was erroneously included by the respondents into the holding of the petitioners is excluded, the holding of the petitioners is reduced within the prescribed ceiling limit as per the provisions of section 6 read with Schedule A VII of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976. 10.Accordingly we find substantial merit in the writ petition. Apparently holding of the petitioners is below the ceiling of 8 acres. The petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer (c). No order as to costs. Petition allowed.