1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6196 OF 2008 M/s. Hikal Ltd. ...Petitioner. v. Mr. Janardhan K. Patil and Ors. ...Respondents. Ms. Rupali Thosar i/by Ms Harshda Wable, advs. for the petitioner. Mr. Nitin Mulye, adv. for the respondent no.1. Ms Rujuta V. Masurekar i/by M/s. Little & Co., adv. For the R.No.2. Shri S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for the R.No.3. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 14th September, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Plaintiff , who is respondent no.1, filed Regular Civil Suit No.55 of 2000 before the Civil Judge Junior Division at Panvel for removal of encroachment and possession of the land belonging to him. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendant no.2, who is the respondent no.2 before this Court, had illegally handed over possession of the land belonging to the plaintiff to the defendant no.1 Hikal Chemical Industries, which is the petitioner before this Court. Suit is pending since 2000. Present petitioner filed an application before the trial Court to stay the proceeding on the ground that the land was being acquired by the State of Maharashtra, so that the action of transfer of possession of the 2 property by the defendant no.2 in favour of the defendant no.1 is regularised. Trial Court refused to stay proceeding and rejected application. Against that, present petition was filed. 2 One Ramesh Thoke, Area Manager of the respondent no.2 MIDC filed affidavit in reply on 23rd July, 2010. In paragraph 10 of that affidavit, he stated that notice under Section 32(2) of the MIDC Act was issued on 26.8.2009 and was published in gazette and the matter is now pending for its decision and for issuance of further notification for the acquisition. Thus, there is clear admission that the land belonging to the plaintiff is not so far acquired and certainly it was not acquired in the year 2000 or before that when the defendant no.2 handed over possession of the said land to the defendant no.1. In view of these circumstances, there is no justification to stay the proceeding of the civil suit filed in the year 2005 by the plaintiff. 3 Therefore, the petition stands dismissed subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff/respondent no.1. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) 3