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 Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred as “said Act”) and in the absence of the permission of the Commissioner, under Section 12 of the said Act, the land cannot be transferred. On hearing the parties on this issue, the executing Court by its order dated 2.2.2012, directed decree holder to obtain necessary permission from the District Collector, Nanded. On 18.2.2012, the executing Court extended time to obtain a necessary permission from the competent authority. The petitioner moved application Exh.98 in darkhast proceedings mentioning therein that it is difficult for him to get the permission from the Collector within the specific period given by the Court and, therefore, he sought further time. Executing Court, by its order dated 5.3.2012 extended time for obtaining the necessary permission for sale transaction of the suit land. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.2.2012 and also order dated 5.3.2012 in this petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of Section 12 of the Act, the trial Court ought not to have directed the decree holder who is an old aged person to obtain permission from the Collector. He submitted that it is the owner i.e. the judgment debtor, who has to apply for such permission. However, the trial Court has saddled this responsibility on the petitioner which is against the position of law, as contemplated under Section 12 of the Act.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondents while opposing this petition, has submitted that this petition cannot be entertained by the Single Judge, as the reliefs of issuing writ of mandamus along with writ of certiorari are prayed. The Single Bench cannot invoke writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by issuing writ of mandamus and writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution is the power vests only with the Division Bench. He further submitted that the decree holder – petitioner has not raised this point before the trial Court and he is precluded from raising objection to the direction given by the Court to him to obtain the permission. He submitted that there are certain post facto developments. The respondents have applied to the Commissioner for the permission of sale of the land and the said permission was refused by the Deputy Collector (Resettlement) by his order dated 15.2.2012 and in view of this refusal to sale/transfer the suit land, the petition has become infructuous.

6. At the out set it is made clear that the said order of refusal is not challenged and, therefore, that cannot be set aside. The petitioner will have to take out separate proceedings to challenge the said order. So, as on today, the order exists and stands. Yet the petition is maintainable and can be entertained. Apparently, it gives impressi