1 22.wp8096.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8096 OF 2011 Shri Mahesh Chimanlal Shah. ....Petitioner Vs. Navasha Govind Gorkhana & ors. ....Respondents Mr. G.R. Rege i/b. Ms. Shakuntala Mudbidri, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S.G. Karandikar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent No. 4. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- NOVEMBER 25, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Rege, Advocate for Petitioner, Mr. S.G. Karandikar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent No. 4. 2. By the impugned order, the interim application for stay and injunction filed in pending revision before MRT has been dismissed by the learned President of MRT, Mumbai. In so far as the prayer for stay is 2 22.wp8096.11 concerned, the facts on record reveal that on 11/2/1997 a permission under Section 43 of the B.T. & A.L. Act, 1948 had been granted and thereafter the land in question was sold to Smita Enterprises (Respondent No. 3) who has in turn sold the same to Navani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 2). It is thus clear that the order under Section 43 has already been implemented by the transfer in favour of the Smita Enterprises. Hence, there was no question of granting any stay to such an order which is already implemented. 3. In so far as the relief of injunction is concerned, the Civil suit filed by the brother of the Petitioner is pending. Application for condonation of delay in filing the revision application is also pending. Substantial construction is already made and though some portion of land is vacant, construction of some buildings is going on, in my opinion, interest of justice would be served if it is directed that any further construction or alienation which may be made by the Respondent No. 2 shall be subject to the final outcome of the delay condonation application and of the revision application in case the delay is condoned and no equities of whatsoever nature will be claimed by the Respondent No. 2 or the transferee from the Respondent No. 2 who may purchase the tenements hereinafter. 3 22.wp8096.11 4. Subject to this clarification, Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid direction with no order as to costs. The application for condonation of delay shall be heard and finally decided on or before 30 April, 2012. 5. It is needless to state that the Application for condonation of delay is heard and in case the delay is condoned, the Revision Application shall be heard on its own merits and without being influenced either by the impugned order or by this order. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)