1 W.P.No.11439 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11439 OF 2010 Gruh Finance Limited ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.W. Munde, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 to 3; Mr P.S. Paranjape, Advocate for respondent no.6 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 3rd March, 2011 PER COURT : Mr S.W. Munde, learned Counsel for the petitioner states on instructions that in the light of the statement made on behalf of respondents at paragraph 4, which reads thus :- "I say that from the pleading in the Writ Petition it is evident that the order dated 13.8.2009 is passed by the District Magistrate, Dhule in favour of the petitioners in Appeal no.13 of 2009 in which directions have been issued for handing over possession of the said property in favour of the petitioner. However, it is submitted that the said order was not brought to the notice of the 2 W.P.No.11439 of 2010 present deponent as I have assumed charge as Tahsildar, Dhule on 7.9.2010. In the mean while order from the District Consumer forum, Dhule was received in case nos.410 of 2008 and 547 of 2009, directing that an amount of Rs.94,809 plus interest and Rs. 55,000 plus interest respectively be recovered from the Respondent no.4 in his capacity as the Secretary of Shri Vishnu Maharaj Parnerkar Pandit, Bhyagyesh Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Dhule, as land revenue. I say that, it was pursuant to the order from the District Consumer Forum, Dhule that the land in question were put up for sale as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. I say that, though auction sale was held on 29.11.2010. The sale has not been confirmed as yet by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhule. I say that, in the mean while an order was received from this Hon'ble High Court staying further proceedings pursuant to the auction sale and, therefore, matter has remained as it is. I say that, the auction sale has not been confirmed as yet. I say that, earlier the deponent had proceeded with the auction sale as charge of the petitioner institution has not been shown in the revenue records of the property concerned and therefore, it was presumed that there is no mortgage of the said property in favour of the petitioners. I say that, on the other hand entries were made in the revenue record regarding the charge created pursuant to the orders of the District Consumer Forum, Dhule. I therefore, say that the action of the present deponent in proceeding with the auction sale was because of the fact that, there was no revenue entry regarding any mortgage in favour of the petitioner institution. In any case I say that, the auction sale under challenge in the present writ petition has not been confirmed. I say that in the auction sale, Respondent no.6 was the sole bidder who has shown his willingness to purchase said property for an amount of Rs.15,50,000/-. I say that the Respondent no.6 has deposited 1/4 3 W.P.No.11439 of 2010 of the said amount with the present deponent. I say that, upon realization of the entire amount, the deponent is ready to apportion the said amount between the petitioner institution and claimants in Misc. Appeal no.547 of 2009 and 410 of 2008 before the District Consumer Forum, Dhule pursuant to whose directions the auction sale was held. I say that, interest of the petitioner institution can be safeguarded by directing that the amount of dues payable to the petitioner be paid from the amount realised from the auction sale of the property in question." the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition. We accept the aforesaid statement made on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3, in the affidavit in reply filed by respondent no.3 as an undertaking to the Court. In that light of the statement, therefore, we permit the petitioner to withdraw this petition. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/wp11439.10