1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No.385/2007 [Chandrakant s/o Kashiram Rane .vrs. Nagpur Improvement Trust and others] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. S.M. Purohit, Advocate for R-4. .......... Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Dated : 9 th February, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The question to be decided is which of the plot number if lay open to sky. It is the case of the present appellant that there are two plots having number 8 and both are still open but they are in two different khasara numbers. The appellant has purchased his plot for its commercial exploitation. This court has on various occasion given time to NMC to find out whether both plot No.8 are still vacant. However, NMC is still tracing out the record and today again adjournment is being sought. 2 Advocate Kulkarni has contended that because of transfer of regions and change in policy, respondent nos.1 and 2 have ceased to exercise any jurisdiction on both plot no.8 and it is now NMC which has to consider the matter. He points out that Second Appeal No.110/2007 has been admitted on this question by this Court. In the circumstances, as requested by the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent no.4, instead of admitting the present matter, the appellant to move the NMC by 23.3.2009 with appropriate application and respondent no.4 NMC shall consider his application and grievance as early as possible and in any case by 30th June, 2009. As the appellant has kept his plot open to sky, time bound direction is issued in the interest of justice. Advocate Kulkarni states that he should be given liberty to challenge adjudication by respondent no.4. As it will be independent adjudication, no such liberty is required. In view of these directions nothing survives in this second appeal. Second Appeal is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Gulande