1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7348 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 7348 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 7348 OF 2006 Rajendra Ksturchand Surana of Pune. .. Petitioner. vs. Sarvatra Co-op.Hsg.Soc. .. Respondent. Mr. Pankaj Dal for petitioner. Mr. V.G. Peshave for Respondent. CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 11th December, 2006. DATE : 11th December, 2006. DATE : 11th December, 2006. P.C. . By the present petition an order passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Bombay, Bench at Pune allowing an appeal filed by the society is challenged. The Petitioner claims to be a promoter member of society which was registered in the year 1976, as tenant in the partnership housing society. The first appellate court on the basis of evidence and material on record has found that the petitioner has paid a total amount of Rs. 3,605/- including membership subscription and did not pay any amount thereafter with a view to seek the allotment of the plot. It is then found that 2 the petitioner was trying to have the allotment of the plot at the price which was prevailing about 10 years before and lastly and more importantly a further finding is recorded that no plot of land is available with the society for allotment. The order passed by the appellate court reveals that one Mr. Bakare who was since long litigating against the society for allotment of the plot had approached the Supreme Court and as no other plot was available the Supreme Court issued necessary directions to the competent authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling Act for granting permission to the society to allow a portion of the plot admeasuring 1640 sq. ft. in favour of Shri Bakare. This by itself makes it abundantly clear that no plot of land is available with the society and in the absence of any allotment made in favour of the petitioner in the past so also in the absence of any money being paid by petitioner towards the cost of the plot, it is not possible to interfere with the order passed by the appellate court. The order of the appellate court does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. Hence, writ petition is summarily rejected. 2. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks stay of this order for a period of eight weeks. As this order is not an executable order, there is no question of granting stay to the same. Prayer for stay is therefore rejected. 3 (A.P. Deshpande, J.) (A.P. Deshpande, J.) (A.P. Deshpande, J.)