ORDER : Prafulla C. Pant, J. 1. Heard. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 19.11.2012 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure XVII to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner in response to his letter dated 07.11.2012, has been informed that the transfer of the land sought by him from tribals, in his name, cannot be allowed in violation of Meghalaya Transfer Land (Regulation) Act, 2010. 3. Briefly stated the petitioner has entered into an agreement with certain tribals for purchase of the land in village Umsohpai, Raid Marwet, Myliemship, Ri-Bhoi District of Meghalaya, measuring 4,71,99,174 sq meters. The petitioner a city developer, sought permission from the Government of Meghalaya vide Annexure 1 dated 07.04.2010 for transfer of the land. 4. Section 3(1) of Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971, requires that no land in Meghalaya shall be transferred by tribal to a non-tribal except with the previous sanction of the competent authority. Section 4(1) of said Act provides that in granting or refusing sanction order, circumstances mentioned in Clause (a) to (f) shall be taken into account. Sub-Section (3) of Section 4 of the Act provides that the competent authority has to decide the application within six months, and Sub-Section (4) of Section 4 provides that if no such order is passed by the competent authority within six months, it shall be deemed that sanction has been accorded. It is this provision under which the petitioner has taken shelter and prayed that the impugned order be quashed. 5. On behalf of the respondents, learned Advocate General, pointed out that vide the impugned order dated 19.11.2012 (copy Annexure XVII), the permission has been declined. There is no question of deemed sanction. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that Section 5 of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971, clearly provides that any aggrieved person by an order of competent authority refusing him sanction, may, within a period of sixty days, prefer an appeal to the Board of Revenue. On this basis, it is pleaded that since the petitioner had alternative efficacious remedy available to him under law as such this writ petition is not maintainable. 6. On this basis, it is pleaded that since the petitioner had alternative efficacious remedy available to him under law as such this writ petition is not maintainable. 6. It is further pointed out on behalf of the respondents that the so called pattas in favour of the land owners who have agreed to sell the same to the petitioner, has already been cancelled as such there is no question of granting sanction to transfer the land. 7. In reply to this, Shri S Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that vide the order dated 21.06.2012 passed in WP(C)No. 82 of 2012, the cancellation of pattas of the tribals has already been set aside and held to be illegal. 8. Shri KS Kynjing, Advocate General, submitted that the above mentioned order dated 21.06.2012 passed in WP(C)No. 82 of 2012 is not binding on the State as the State was not impleaded as a party in the said writ petition. 9. In the above circumstances, having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that this writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 10. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed with the observations that the petitioner if he so likes may seek remedy available to him under Section 5 of the Meghalaya Land Transfer (Regulation) Act, 1971 and the authority concerned may consider the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 11. The interim order dated 22.11.2012 stands hereby vacated. Petition dismissed.