SSK/930 1 WP/4864.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4864 OF 2011 Enercon India Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Mohan Jayakar with Mr. Pankaj Sutar, Mr. Nikhil Wable & Mr.Rahul i/b. M/s. Khaitan & Jayakar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Niteen Jamdar i/b. Mr. Milind Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.3. Mr. Vinod Jadhav, Advocate for respondent no.6. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 4th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The order impugned in this petition was also impugned in Writ Petition Nos. 9502 of 2010 and 9503 of 2010. Those petitions came to be disposed of by a common order dated 3rd May, 2011. This Court refused to interfere in the said writ petitions on the ground that the petitions pertain to recording of the mutation entry and directed the parties to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to get decided their title in the property in question. The petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 9502 of 2010 and 9503 of 2010 is the predecessor-in-title of the present petitioner. SSK/930 2 WP/4864.11 3. In the above circumstances and for the reasons stated in Order dated 3rd May, 2005 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 9502 of 2010 and 9503 of 2010, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 4. Mr. Jayakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the observation of the Minister that there is no permission under Section 63-1-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short “the Act”) is factually incorrect. He has relied upon the permission under Section 63-1-A of the Act which is annexed at page 50 of his additional affidavit. It is true that the petitioner has obtained permission under Section 63-1-A of the said Act, however, the impugned order is passed on the ground that there is dispute about title of predecessor-in-title of the present petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner’s remedy is to approach the Civil Court, as stated earlier, and there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. (RANJIT MORE, J.)