1 Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.

2 RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties. The respective Advocates waive service for respective Respondents.

3 In Writ Petition No.11203 of 2011 and other connected Writ Petitions an order passed by the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Appeal Nos.455 to 483 and 496 of 2011 has been challenged. In these petitions an order was passed on 4th January, 2012 which reads thus:

“1 Mr. J. G. Reddy, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 3S. R.A. seeks adjournment to take instructions and make specific statement on the following two aspects:

(a) as to from what date, the Appeals filed by the Petitioners for challenging the decision of the Additional Collector (E & C) to treat them as eligible, are pending and within how much time the Appeals can be heard on merits and decided;

(b) for how much time application filed by Parishram SRA CHS Limited to remove Respondent No.4 Developer is pending with the SRA, what is the action taken by the SRA for said application/s and how much time would be required to decide the said application/s after hearing Respondent No. 4Develo