-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1222 OF 2010. Ahamad Hasanmiya Mukadam. ..Petitioner. Versus Akbar Rahiman Mukadam. ..Respondent. Mrs. P. U. Badadare i/b Mr. Ganesh Gole for the Petitioner. Ms. M. P. Thakur, AGP for respondent no.2. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : March 15, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition takes exception to the order dated 13th January 2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division in Appeal 172 of 2009 under which the order dated 18th May 2009 passed by the Additional Collector, Ratnagiri was set aside and the order dated 22nd August 2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dapoli came to be restored. 2. Respondent no.1 filed an application for grant of N.A. Permission before the SDO, Dapoli. Permission was granted by the SDO after satisfying himself that the relevant rules and regulations are complied with. The petitioner challenged this order before the Additional Collector and the Additional Collector remanded the matter back to the SDO. Respondent no.1 thereafter preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division which was allowed by the impugned order. -: 2 :- 3. Objection is taken by the petitioner to N.A. permission in favour of the respondent no.1 on the ground that initially he claimed tenancy rights in the suit property and later he has filed suit for declaration of his ownership rights in the suit property. The objection is without any merit. So far as the petitioner’s claim about tenancy in the suit property is concerned, the same is negatived upto the High Court. Thereafter, in the year 2007 the petitioner has filed the suit for declaration of his ownership rights. That suit is pending and till date no order in favour of the petitioner is passed. The petitioner as of today could not show any right or interest in the suit property either in his capacity as tenant or owner. Obviously, if the petitioner succeeds in his suit for declaration of ownership rights then he would be entitled to apply for appropriate reliefs in accordance with law. However, at this stage the petitioner cannot object the N.A. permission granted to respondent no.1. I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this court. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)