-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 764 OF 2010 Mohd. Aslam Rehman Vaghu ..Petitioners. Versus Tukaram S. Thukrul & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr. Aniket P. Ranade for the Petitioner. Mr. Nikhil Salian for respondent no.1. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : April 30, 2010. P. C. : 1. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 by filing an affidavit-in-reply pointed out that learned counsel for the petitioner by writing an undated letter to the Tehsildar informed that on 18th March 2010 this Court has granted stay in the above writ petition. Said letter is annexed as Annexure-A to the affidavit-in-reply. He submitted that there is no stay order granted by this Court as stated in the said letter of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Ranade, learned counsel for the petitiner submitted that on 18th March 2010 when the matter was called out for admission before the Court (Coram: Mr. J. H. Bhatia, J.) respondent no.1 was personally present. At that time Court orally asked respondent no.1 not to take coercive action. Mr. Ranade admitted that there was no stay order granted by this Court on 18th March 2010, however, letter at Annexure-A to the affidavit-in-reply was inadvertently written by him. He tendered written unconditional apology, -: 2 :- same is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. Apology is accepted. 3. This writ petition arises out of proceeding under section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. 1st Respondent’s application under the said provision was allowed by the Tehsildar and this order was confirmed by SDO and MRT. The suit land is situated in Ratnagiri district and in view of the amended provision of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the said Act, respondent no.1 was declared as tenant in the suit land. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the constitutional validity of section 4(2) of the said Act is under challenge in this Court and he would also like to challenge the same. He seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a substantive petition challenging the constitutional validity of section 4(2) of the said Act alongwith the impugned order. Leave with liberty as prayed for is granted. Petition is disposed of as withdrawn. (R.V. MORE, J.)