FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WP/9418/2010 SANDEEP V/S STATE ... Shri N.D.Sonawane, Advocate for petitioner, Shri V.H.Dighe, AGP for respondent No.1 and Shri V.P.Latange, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... 1. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2. The limited grievance raised in the petition is that though the Writ Petition No.1891 of 2010 filed by the petitioner has been allowed by this Court, wherein the reservation has been held to have been lapsed, respondent No.2 is not taking mutation entry in the municipal records. 3. It appears that in spite of the directions issued by this Court, respondent No.1 had not taken the steps to mutate the entry. It is clear from the communication addressed by respondent No.2 that it is only on 23.11.2010, when the notice was issued in the present Writ Petition, the action has been taken and the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1891 of 2010 has been complied with. However, since an apology has been tendered by filing an affidavit, we do not propose to proceed further against respondent No.2 for the inaction on its part. 4. Be that as it may, since now the name of the petitioner has been mutated in the municipal record, nothing survives in the Writ Petition. Needless to state that if the petitioner makes any application for development of the property, respondent No.2 shall act in accordance with law. 5. Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (R.M.BORDE, J.) (B.R.GAVAI, J.) Dt.10.12.2010 akl