7.wp.489-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.489 OF 2009 Shri Sanjay Appaso Swami. ..Petitioner. Versus Mrs.Shobha Vilas Patil and others. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Amit B. Borkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.S.S. Bhende, A.G.P., for respondent ­ State. .... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH, AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATED : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.:­ 1. The petitioner by this Petition, challenges the order dated 12th September, 2007 passed by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. By that order, the Competent Authority has directed that in view of the interim order passed by a Civil Court dated 11.9.2007 directing the parties to maintain status quo, further action pursuant to the order of the Competent Authority dated 30th August, 2007 should be stayed. By the order dated 7.wp.489-09 2 30th August, 2007 the Competent Authority had canceled the sale­deed dated 7th February, 2002 executed in favour of one Mrs.Shobha Vilas Patil and others and has directed the revenue authorities to take consequential entries in 7/12 extracts. It appears that thereafter the aggrieved parties approached the Civil Court and the Civil Court directed the parties to maintain status­quo. It is an admitted position that, by that date, the entry in the 7/12 extract was not taken pursuant to order dated 30th August, 2007 and, therefore, the Competent Authority in view of the status­quo order passed by the Civil Court directed that no further action should be taken pursuant to earlier order dated 30th August, 2007. In our opinion, therefore, the order dated 12th September, 2007 is a reasonable order passed by the Competent Authority in compliance with the order that was passed by the Civil Court. The order dated 30th August, 2007 was in two parts. By one part of the order, the sale­deed was canceled which did not require any executory action. By the second part of the said order, the Authorities of the Revenue Department were directed to 7.wp.489-09 3 make entries in the 7/12 extract. Till the Civil Court passed a interim order, the entries in the revenue record were not taken. Really speaking pursuant to the order of the Civil Court itself entries in the revenue record could not have been taken. That position is reiterated by the Competent Authority by order dated 12th September, 2007. In our opinion, therefore, no exception can be taken to that order. Petition is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (K.K. TATED,J)