mss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 924 OF 2009 BHUPENDRA MANUBHAI KOTHARI .. PETITIONER Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS... RESPONDENTS Mr. D. H. Mehta i/b A. B. Mishra for the petitioners Mr. D. A. Nalawade, GP for R-1 to 3 Mr. V.A. Thorat for R-6 CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED: 17th November, 2009 P.C. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the land admeasuring about 5 Acres 27 Gunthas lying and being situated at property bearing Survey No. 378 (pt) C.T.S. No. 7728 are as per P. R. card 22961.00 Sq. Mtrs. of village Kolekalyan, Taluka Andheri B.S.D. Mumbai adjacent to nalla flowing in between the village boundary of Bandra and Kolekalyan by virtue of Agreement dated 5/5/1967. The case of the petitioner inter alia is that the 4th respondent i.e. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (“MMRDA” for convenience) is carrying out construction on the said plot of land. Learned counsel for the MMRDA has submitted that the fears of the petitioner are baseless and no construction is going on on the said land as of today. She has drawn our attention to letter dated 5th May, 2009 addressed by the Chief Engineer of MMRDA to the petitioner and 6th respondent stating that construction undertaken by MMRDA is being stopped. 2. Mr. Thorat learned counsel for the 6th respondent also states that no construction is going on the said property. Mr. Thorat disputes the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in possession of the said land. He states that 6th respondent is in possession of the said land and 6th respondent is the owner of the said land. Learned counsel for the petitioner is disputing Mr. Thorat’s statement that the 6th respondent is in possession of the said land. 3. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent, however, states that the 4th respondent needs the said land and it shall follow due process of law before taking possession thereof or take any action in accordance with law for the possession thereof. Statement made by learned counsel are recorded by this court. We make it clear that, we have not expressed any opinion on the disputed questions as to who is in possession of the said land. 4. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the M.M.R.D.A., the petition does not survive and is disposed of as such. (Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) (Smt. Mridula Bhatkar, J.)