IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY VP H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 3018 OF 2009 Sushil S. Shah ... Petitioner Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar, for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : Smt. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 13, 2009. P.C.: ---- 1. The petitioner’s grievance in the present petition is that the order impugned in the petition has been passed without considering all the facts and circumstances of this case. The case of the petitioner is that he has purchased the land from members of the Pasalkar family. He has obtained a decree of specific performance in his favour against Pasalkar family. However, that decree is conditional upon the Pasalkar family i.e. his vendors obtaining permission from the District Collector & Dy. Director (Lands), Resettlement, Pune who is respondent No.2 herein, to sell the land to the petitioner. Before any application could be made to the respondent No.2, the order impugned in the present petition has been - 2 - passed only on the ground that the petitioner or his vendors have not made any application for permission for transfer of the land to respondent No.2. 2. Heard the learned advocates for the parties. The petition can be conveniently disposed of by directing the petitioner/his vendor to apply for permission for transferring the land, to the respondent No.2. Such application shall be made within 3 weeks from today. Respondent No. 2 shall decide the said application within six weeks from that date. Till then the order impugned in the present petition is kept in abeyance. In the event respondent No. 2 decides said application in favour of petitioner/his vendors, the order impugned in this petition will be deemed to have been set aside. In case respondent No. 2 rejects the said application of the petitioner or hsi vendors, the order impugned in this petition will revive. . Petition is accordingly disposed of. [ Smt. NISHITA MHATRE, J.]