WA 416/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr. Mazumdar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Dr. Todi, learned Addi tional Advocate General, Meghalaya. Also heard Mr. Kynta, learned Counsel for th e respondent No. 7. Noticeably the respondent No. 8 though served with the notic e of the instant appeal has not entered appearance. The instant appeal has been presented against the order dated 4/ 10/2010 passed in M.C. 144(SH)/2010 arising out of WP(C) 99(SH)/2010 refusing th e interim order as prayed for on behalf of the writ appellant/writ petitioner. T he writ appellant/writ petitioner had approached this Court being aggrieved by t he permission granted by the Government of Meghalaya, Revenue and Disaster Manag ement Department, for transfer of flats at Ferndale Apartments situated at M.G. Road, Shillong, amongst others to the respondent No. 8 contending it to be in su percession of his preferential claim under the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regul ation) Act, 1971 and the Rules framed thereunder. The pleaded stand of the State respondents as well as the respondent No. 7, the Builder of the aforementioned apartments inter alia is that the provisions of this enactment are not applicabl e to the transaction relating to flats. The writ appellant/writ petitioner being aggrieved by the refusal of the interim restraint to the transaction of flat No . S. 302 in the aforementioned apartments in favour of the respondent No. 8 in t he above premise has come up in appeal seeking redress. This Court while issuing notice on 22/12/2010 directed maintenance of status quo with regard to the poss ession of the above flat. Whereas Mr. Mazumdar reiterated the stand of the writ appellant/ writ petitioner seeking interference with the order impugned in the instant appe al and an appropriate interim relief, the learned Additional Advocate General an d Mr. Kynta apart from resisting the same have urged that meanwhile the responde nt No. 8 has taken possession of the flat, the transaction in connection with wh ich had been completed three years back. This, however, is disputed by Mr. Mazum dar, who on instructions, submits that the execution of the sale deed relating t o the flat has not yet taken place. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a consid eration of their pleadings to the limited extent as presently necessary, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice, if this appeal is closed wit h a direction to maintain the status quo with regard to the possession of the fl at involved pending the adjudication of the writ proceeding or till any further order or orders by the learned Single Judge depending on the exigencies of the s ituation that may arise in between. Ordered accordingly. The learned Single Judg e, having regard to the nature of the controversy raised is requested to make an endeavour to complete the adjudication of the writ proceedings within a time fr ame of three months from today. Needless to say, the interim arrangement as abov e and the transaction in particular would abide by the final orders in the writ proceedings. The appeal stands closed in the above terms. No costs.