1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3659 OF 2010 (Dakru Bajirao Yerne & Anr. vs. The Collector, Bhandara) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. SEPTEMBER 29, 2010. Heard Shri Vyawahare, learned counsel for the petitioners - plaintiffs and Mrs. Deshpande, learned AGP for the respondent – defendant. The application moved by the petitioners seeking permission for transfer of suit land i.e. Survey Nos. 632 and 633 of Village Pindkepar, Tahsil – Sakoli, District – Bhandara, has been rejected on 25.03.2010 by the respondent by giving reason that the petitioner – applicant is not the owner of that land. Shri Vyawahare, learned counsel points out that in a suit for specific performance decreed on 06.10.2009, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara, has asked recorded owners to apply for such permission within a period of three months. In default on their part, the petitioners have been given that liberty and application has been filed in pursuance of the said liberty. According to him, the application could not have been rejected. He fairly points out that earlier in 2007, the vendors had filed application but as it was not 2 diligently prosecuted, it came to be dismissed. The learned AGP states that as per provisions of law, the application must be moved by the original vendors only and as the petitioners are not recorded owners, their application cannot be looked into. The attention is also invited to reply affidavit placed on record today before this Court. It is apparent that the suit for specific performance has been decreed and in that decree, time was given to the original defendants to obtain permission from the Collector. In case of failure on their part to apply within a period of three months, present petitioners have been permitted to move application. Accordingly, the present petitioners have sought leave for transfer in pursuance of that decree. The reasons given in the impugned order are, therefore, unsustainable. The respondent has to hear the petitioner before taking any decision in the matter. The judgment and decree of trial Court cannot be allowed to be defeated only because original defendant therein is reluctant to apply for such permission. The provisions of Section 12 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986, does not create any obstacle in such consideration. In view of this, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is allowed. The respondent to hear the petitioners and pass appropriate orders on their application within a period of six weeks 3 from today. The petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent on 18.10.2010 and to abide by his further instructions in the matter. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.