wp8967-10.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8967 OF 2010 Shyamalal @ Shyamsing Bhagwansingh Pardeshi .. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Mr.Rahul S. Kadam for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P for respondent Nos.1 to 3, 8 and 9. Mr.A.A.Garge for respondent Nos.6 and 7. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 20th JUNE 2011. P.C.: 1] Heard both sides. There is no reason to accede to the request of Mr.Garge to dismiss this petition on account of existence of alternate and equally efficacious remedy because in the additional affidavit of the petitioner, affirmed on 17th October 2010, it has been pointed out that his appeal under section 248 the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is pending before the State Government and it is undecided. 2] However, Mr.Kadam submits that in the meanwhile, the Civil suit filed by the petitioner which was pending came to be dismissed in default. Once it was dismissed in default, even the interim orders passed therein came to be vacated. Taking wp8967-10.doc 2 advantage of this fact, the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have taken steps to develop the property. They are builders and they may create further complications by entering into transactions in relation to the property. All that can be directed is that the State Government should dispose of the pending appeal as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from today. As far as the activities of the private respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are concerned, nothing prevents the petitioners from making an application to restore the suit and during pendency of such application, to revive the interim order. Such an application can always be made to the civil court. All rights and contentions of the parties in that behalf are kept open. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, the petition is disposed of with the direction to State Government as aforesaid. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)