-: 1 :- wp-6727/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6727 OF 2011 Yeshwant Keshav Bhoir. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. A. J. Almeida for the petitioner. Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, senior counsel with Dr. Birendra Saraf i/b Pramod Patil for R-4 to 8. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for R-1 to 3. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : August 22, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Almeida, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel for respondent nos.4 to 8 and Mr. Patne, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. 2. Respondent No.2 by his order dated 7/7/2011 allowed the petitioner’s appeal thereby quashing and setting aside the order passed by respondent no.3 granting N.A. permission in favour of respondent nos.4 to 8. Respondent nos.4 to 8 thereafter filed revision before the Minister, Revenue Department, Government of Maharashtra. The Minister by his order dated 14/7/2011 admitted the revision preferred by respondent nos.4 to 8 and stayed the order passed by respondent no.2 on 7/7/2011 as and by way of srp -: 2 :- wp-6727/11 interim arrangement during the pendency of revision. This order is challenged by filing present writ petition. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has been declared purchaser in a proceeding under section 32-G of the BT&L Act, 1948 in respect of the land in question. It is therefore his grievance that N.A. permission could not have been granted in favour of respondent nos. 4 to 8 – original owners of the land in question. Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel, on the contrary, submitted that fixation of purchase price is stayed by the SDO in an appeal. He further submitted that initially the petitioner’s wife had also claimed tenancy in respect of the land in question. She failed in the tenancy proceeding and thereafter she filed suit for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession. He submitted that in the circumstances it is clear that claim of the petitioner that he is tenant in respect of the property in question is bogus. Mr. Dhakephalkar, also pointed out that initially a separate writ petition was filed by respondent nos.4 to 8 challenging the stay to the order granting N.A. permission and this Court has allowed respondent nos.4 to 8’s construction. He submitted that today the construction has come upto the plinth level. 4. By the impugned order, the order passed by the Commissioner - respondent nos.2 is stayed. The Commissioner has -: 3 :- wp-6727/11 set aside the N.A. permission. In that view of the matter, prima facie, I am of the opinion that the grant of interim stay will amount to setting aside of the Commissioner’s order at the interim stage. However, Mr.Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel, on the instructions from his client, who is present in Court submitted that if directions are given to the Minister to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner within 4 weeks, respondent nos.4 to 8 will maintain status-quo and will not carry out any further construction for the period of 5 weeks from today. He states that he is making this statement without prejudice to his rights and contentions. In view of this statement made by respondent nos.4 to 8, learned counsel for the petitioner states that his grievance stands redressed. The rights of the parties will be ultimately decided by the Minister in the pending revision filed by respondent nos. 4 to 8. In my view, taking into consideration the above facts and in the interest of justice, revision preferred by respondent nos.4 to 8 deserves to be heard expeditiously. The petition is therefore disposed of by passing following order. -: O R D E R :- (i) The Minister, Revenue Department, Government of Maharashtra is directed to hear and dispose of revision filed by respondent nos. 4 to 8 as expeditiously as possible and in -: 4 :- wp-6727/11 any case within four weeks from today. (ii) The above mentioned Statement made by Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 4 to 8 is accepted without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents. (iii) Mr. Patne, learned AGP shall communicate this order to the concerned Minister. (RANJIT MORE, J.)