1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICMTURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 1799 of 2007 Dr. Shridhar M. Timande ..vs..The Collector, and Dy. Director of Rahabilitation Wardha and another. Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Coram: R. V. MORE, J Dated : 31st January 2008 Heard Mr. Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Patel, learned AGP for respondent No.1 and Mrs. Anjali Joshi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. By this petition, the petitioner takes exception to the order passed by respondent No.1 i.e. Collector and Dy. Director of Rehabilitation, Wardha on 2/4/2007 whereby the permission is granted at the instance of respondent No.2 to sell land admeasuring 2.58 hectares (hereinafter referred to as “said land”, for brevity) out of Survey No. 966 belonging to the petitioner. The Survey Nos. 177/2 and 2 177/3 ( new survey No.966) admeasuring 2.97 hectares situated at Mouza-Deoli, District Wardha, admittedly belonging to the petitioner and he agreed to sell the same @ Rs.5,000/- per acre by an agreement of sale, dated 19/4/1992, in favour of respondent No.2. Since petitioner failed to execute the sale deed, respondent No. 2 preferred Regular Civil Suit bearing No. 277/2002 ( old No. 278/1996)and the said suit was decreed by judgment dated 12/8/2003. The petitioner filed Regular Civil Appeal bearing No. 125/2003 and the same was also dismissed. The petitioner also failed in Second Appeal, in this Court and Special Leave Petition in Apex Court. It is pertinent to note that the land covered by the agreement to sale comes within the benefited zone of Lower Wardha Project and, therefore, the permission as contemplated under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986, (hereinafter referred to as “the aforesaid Act, for 3 brevity) is required to be taken. The petitioner in pursuance of this provision preferred applications on 8/1/1992 and 8/7/1994 for permission to sell the land to respondent No.2, in pursuance of agreement to sale mentioned above. However, his applications were rejected on 20/10/1992 and 21/1/1996 respectively by the competent authority. Respondent No.2, in pursuance of decree for specific performance, preferred similar application on 05/09/2005. However, the said application was rejected by an order dated 18/10/2005. The petitioner's Second Appeal bearing No.27/2006 challenging the lower Courts judgment and decree for specific performance was heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 12/3/2007. Though the petitioner's appeal was dismissed, respondent No.2 was permitted to make necessary application within 10 days. In pursuance of this order, respondent No.2 preferred fresh application before Respondent No.1 i.e. 4 Collector and Dy. Director of Rehabilitation, Wardha for permission to sell the said land. This application came to be allowed subject to certain conditions by the impugned order. Perusal of impugned order reveals that there is 7.31 hectares of land shown in 8-A extract of the petitioner and the same is reserved for distribution to the persons displaced by the Lower Wardha Project under Section 16 of the aforesaid Act. Respondent No.2 was granted permission subject to condition that he will hand over possession as and when the Government need this land for distribution to the persons displaced by the Lower Wardha Project. In my opinion, the petitioner having executed agreement to sale in favour of respondent No.2 and having suffered decree for specific performance, which has been confirmed till the Apex Court, can not make grievance that permission in favour of respondent No.2 is not legal. In my considered opinion, no 5 prejudice is caused to the petitioner by the impugned order as Respondent No.2 is permitted to purchase the said land subject to condition put by the impugned order, especially when the said land is reserved for the purpose mentioned above. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of my jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Mr. Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that interim relief granted by this Court in the aforesaid petition on 18/4/2007 is in operation till today, and same be continued for a period of two weeks. In contra, Mrs. Joshi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that in pursuance of impugned order the sale deed is already executed, therefore, protection need not be given. 6 In view of the fact that the interim relief is in operation since 18th April, 2007, in my opinion, interest of justice will serve, if the same is continued for further period of two weeks from to today. Judge. jsa.