Oral Judgment:

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent heard finally at the stage of admission

2. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the executing Court in Special Darkhast No.13/2005 directing the petitioner himself to obtain a permission for the purpose of sale of the suit land.

3. The petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of the suit land. Agreement of sale was executed by respondent i.e. judgment debtor in his favour. Suit was filed for execution of sale deed. The suit was decreed on the basis of consent terms filed by both the parties. Execution proceedings were filed by the petitioner i.e. decree holder in the executing Court vide Special Darkhast No.13/2005. This fact is not denied by the respondents. The respondents after filing the consent terms, refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner – decree holder, therefore, the petitioner filed execution proceedings i.e. Special Darkhast No.13/2005 before the executing Court. In the execution proceedings, respondents raised objection that the suit land falls under the benefited zone as per the provisions of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Reha