1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2769 OF 2008 Abdul Razak Noor Mohd. Ansari ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mrs. Anjali Iyer for petitioner. Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for State. Mr. K.S. Patil for respondent no.3. Ms. Amisha Shah i/by M/s. Makrand Gandhi and Co. for respondent no.4. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. September 08, 2009. P.C. Heard Mrs. Iyer the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Kuldip Patil appears for respondent no.3. Mr. Konde-Deshmukh, the learned APP, appears for the State. Ms. Amisha Shah appears for respondent no.4. We had noted in our order dated 24/8/2009 that the respondent no.3 had put in possession four of the tenements holders for whom this petition has been filed and yesterday he placed on record other six possession receipts. The learned counsel for the petitioner has confirmed that all these ten persons for whom this petition was filed have been put in possession of the respective tenements allotted to them in Building No. 17-B, Motilal Nehru Nagar, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai (as per the allotment letters issued by the respondent no.3). Consequently, 2 nothing further survives in this petition. Mr. Kuldip Patil the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 has invited our attention to our order dated 7/8/2009 and submitted that the observations made by us in para 2 were not based on correct instructions. He has placed before us a pursis stating that in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent no.3, the correct position was set out, namely, that ten project affected persons who are the beneficiaries of this petition could be allotted vacant tenements in Building No.16, instead of their claim for allotment of 10 tenements in Building No.17-B. He has further clarified that the persons who were seeking to intervene in this petition on the basis of the affidavit and without any application having been made for such intervention, are not the allottees of respondent no.3 and, therefore, they could not have been provided with any tenements by respondent no.3 and were in occupation of the vacated tenements unauthorizedly. The possession letters are marked as Annexures A-1 to A-10 for identification. The petition is disposed off. As the possession has been handed over, the respondent no.3 is relieved of the undertaking furnished before this court. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)