1 wp11004.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11004 OF 2010 Satish S/o Francis Jadhav and others ..PETITIONERS -VERSUS- Bhausaheb Kisan Naikwadi and others. ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.K. Shinde, advocate for petitioners. Mr. Sangit, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 5. Mr. Anup Patil, Advocate for respondent no.6. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent no.7. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 18th February, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Advocates Mr. Shinde for petitioners, Mr. Sangit for respondent nos.1 to 5, Mr. Patil for respondent no.6 and the learned A.G.P. for respondent no.7. Revision filed by the respondent nos.1 to 5 challenging grant of N.A. permission to original owner respondent no.6 is pending before the respondent no.7. In that revision the present petitioners filed application and sought their impleadment contending that they are purchaser from respondent no.6. It was opposed by respondent nos.1 to 5 who pointed out that interest of petitioners are created subsequently i.e. after grant of N.A. permission and therefore, are subject to validity of that permission. 2. Advocate Mr. Shinde for petitioners contended that as the interest is already created, the order to the prejudice of the 2 wp11004.10 petitioners can not be passed behind their back. Advocate Mr. Sangit for respondent nos.1 to 5 contends that whatever rights petitioners have derived, the same are sub-ordinate to N.A. permission and if N.A. permission goes, their rights also go. He points out that the validity or otherwise N.A. permission can be effectively adjudicated upon even in absence of the petitioners. 3. Though the interest drawn by the petitioners is subsequent to grant of N.A. permission, it can not be said that they have no right to defend the permission. Presently, they hold the title to property in relation to which that permission operates and are therefore interested in defending its grant. 4. In the circumstances, only to avoid further complications, I find it proper to direct the Additional Commissioner to permit the petitioner nos. 1 to 8 to appear before him as respondents opposing the Revision filed by the respondent nos.1 to 5. The impugned order dated 29.10.2010 is therefore quashed and set aside and the petitioners are directed to be added as party respondents by 3rd March, 2011. The petitioners shall appear on the said date before that authority and thereafter shall file their reply if any by 14th March, 2011. The Additional Commissioner shall then attempt to decide the Revision as early as possible and in any case by 30th April, 2011. 5. With these directions and observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp11004.10