1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1733/2009 M/s Soleri Land Development Pvt.Ltd. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr.Chetan Sharma with Adv.Vaibhav Krishna with Adv. Laxmi Mordekar i/b Juris Consillis for the petitioner Mr.D.A.Nalawade,G.P. Mr.A.Rajadhyaksha i/b Mr.Kedar Wagale for Res.3 Mr.G.D.Utangale with Mr.B.V.Phadnis for Res.2 Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar for Res.4 Mr.K.K.Singhvi for B.M.C. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 8th DECEMBER, 2009. P.C.:- . In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India basic prayers of the petitioner are as under. a] This Hon’ble High Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,direction or order thereby calling for the records and 2 papers pertaining to issuance of letter of intent dated 1st December,2008 and upon consideration of legality ,propriety and validity or otherwise thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the letter of intent dated 1st December,2008 issued in favour of Respondent No.3. b] This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Respondent No.2 to forthwith annul and cancel the Letter of Intent dated 1st December,2008 and to pass appropriate orders and directions to protect the Petitioners’ right as owners of the property. 2] Admittedly by conveyance deed dated 10/5/2009 the petitioner has conveyed the property i.e.the subject matter of the conveyance in favour of the third respondent after accepting consideration for the same. There is no dispute about the fact that the Letter of Intent dated 1/12/2008 which the petitioner wants to be quashed pertains to the same property. The petitioner 3 has sought relief against the third respondent to whom he has sold the above mentioned property. In view of the subsequent event i.e. execution of the conveyance dated 10/5/2009 in our opinion the petition does not survive so far as the property covered by letter of intent dated 1/12/2008 is concerned. The petition will have to be therefore disposed of as infructuous. 3] Needless to say that so far as the rest of the land is concerned it will be open to the petitioner to adopt such remedy as may be available to it in law, if it so desires. 4] Needless to say that qua the rest of the land if the petitioner so desires it will be open to him to assail the Commissioner’s Report dated 30/3/2009. We however, make it clear that on the merits of the petitioner’s contention more particularly as regards the rest of the land and his attack on the Commissioner’s Report we have not expressed any opinion one way or the other. 4 The petition is disposed of as infructuous. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.]