1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1279 OF 2010. Smt. Geetabai Shankar Ghayde and others -: versus :- State of Maharashtra and others. WITH WRIT PETITION No. 964 OF 2010. Smt. Geetabai Shankar Ghayde and others -: versus :- Bhaskar Vyankatrao Hinge Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JUNE 09 , 2010. Heard Shri M.R. Johrapurkar, learned counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.P. for respondent State and Shri J.R. Kidlay, learned counsel for Respondent Bhaskar Hinge. The plaintiff in suit for specific performance has filed both these petitions. His suit for specific performance was decreed by the trial Court and Regular Civil Appeal against it preferred by land owner defendant Bhaskar, was rejected by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court however modified the judgment and decree and directed that in case permission to transfer the land was rejected by the District Rehabilitation Officer, the defendant will be entitled to seek restoration of land from possession of plaintiff. In view of this liberty granted by the Appellate Court, land owner defendant moved the District Rehabilitation Officer and sought permission. That permission was rejected on 2 16.08.2008. After that rejection, he sought restoration of possession and filed execution proceedings therefor. The plaintiff got knowledge of rejection after he was served with notice in execution proceeding. The plaintiff thereafter has filed independent application before the District Rehabilitation Officer for grant of permission to purchase the suit land from defendant Bhaskar. The order dated 16.08.2008 passed by the District Rehabilitation Officer forms subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 1279/2010. The order dated 20.01.2010 passed below Exhs. 13 and 14 in execution matter by the 4th Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha are challenged by the plaintiff in Writ Petition No. 964/2010. I have heard Shri Johrapurkar, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri Kidlay, learned counsel for respondent land owner in both the matters and learned A.G.P. for District Rehabilitation Officer in Writ Petition No. 1279/2010. Learned A.G.P. has requested for adjournment as she is still awaiting instructions. However, looking to the nature of controversy and when the parties are not making any allegation against respondent no.1 District Rehabilitation Officer, her request is rejected. During hearing it has become clear that land owner / defendant did not join petitioner / plaintiff as party before the District Rehabilitation Officer and hence the order dated 16.08.2008 came to be passed behind the back of the petitioner / plaintiff. The order does not show consideration of judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court or as modified by the Appellate Court. Shri Kidlay, learned counsel has stated that all 3 documents were produced before that authority and authority was informed of all the developments. The impugned order dated 16.08.2008 however does not show consideration of all these facts. The petitioner has independently moved application before the District Rehabilitation Officer seeking leave to purchase the said property on 01.08.2009. That application is still stated to be pending. In this situation, it is apparent that interest of justice demands that the application moved by the present petitioner as also application moved by respondent / Bhaskar should be decided together by the District Rehabilitation Officer. Only for that purpose and without observing anything on merits of the rival contentions, the order dated 16.08.2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. Both the applications be considered by the District Rehabilitation Officer in accordance with the law and after hearing the respective parties the said Authority shall decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 15.08.2010. In view of the orders passed in Writ Petition No. 1279/2010 quashing the order rejecting permission to sell land to defendant Bhaskar, it is apparent that the execution proceedings filed by him will have to wait till the issue is decided by the District Rehabilitation Officer. It is an admitted position that in Writ Petition No. 964/2010 this Court has issued interim orders protecting possession of petitioner on 09.03.2010. The petition was filed on 20.02.2010 and in the meanwhile warrant for possession had been issued. In this situation, said warrant of possession is set aside and the execution proceedings are restored at a 4 stage immediately preceding the stage of issuance of warrant of possession. The Executing Court shall proceed further with the matter after it receives sanction or the order passed by the District Rehabilitation Officer in the matter in accordance with the law. Thus both the Writ Petitions are partly allowed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.