(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The learned counsel for the petitioner states that since he is the CMDA counsel now, he is unable to represent the petitioner.
2. We find from the petition that the petitioner has a dispute with the neighbour/third respondent on account of the reconstruction made by the third respondent in his property. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the third respondent submitted regularization application only in the year 2000, but the cut-off date is 28.2.1999. The third respondent is alleged to have put up construction only on 22.8.2000 and submitted a regularization application and thus the prayer made is that the regularization application should be rejected.
3. We are of the view that in the given facts of the case the only direction to be passed is that before regularization application of the third respondent is concerned (we do not even know the present state of it), the petitioner would be entitled to object to the same specifically to verify whether the construction by the third respondent was completed by 28.2.1999 or not.
4. In case the regularization application does not survive and the petitioner is still aggrieved, it is for the petitioner to file a civil suit so far as the grievance against the third respondent/neighbour is concerned.
The petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 are closed.