JUDGMENT S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioner, a statutory body created under the Air Ports Authority of India Act 1994, has approached this Court challenging the order dated 9.2.1998 under provision of Section 9 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, allowing the appeal and quashing and setting aside the order of the Estate Officer dated 23.12.1997 impugned therein by the private respondents. The ground for rejection of the appeal as could be seen from the order impugned touches upon the aspects that could ordinarily be not gone into in a summary proceeding in view of the settled provision of law. 2. During the course of haring, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner therefore requested for time to receive specific instructions qua the petitioner’s willingness to take out appropriate proceedings in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 76/2 and land bearing No. 76/3/1 of Village Hansol as though there are village entries available which could be relied upon for indicating title, the original notification as on date is not available and, therefore, it would be appropriate to prefer proceedings under the Civil Court for establishing right entitled qua parcels of lands which would result not pressing this petition qua those parcels of land bearing Survey No. 76/2 and Survey No. 76/3/1. So far as land bearing Survey No. 76/1 of Village Hansol is concerned, let the matter be remanded to the concerned appellate authority for deciding it afresh after giving opportunity to both the sides to convince the authority qua their respective claim. 3. Accordingly Shri Pandya was granted time and today he submits that he had received instruction from Shri S.C. Sikka, Senior Manager, H.R. (Legal), Air Ports Authority of India, for not pressing this petition so far as the aforesaid two Survey Numbers are concerned, i.e. Survey No. 76/2 and No. 76/3/1 of Village Hansol, with specific liberty to approach the concerned authority, including Civil Court for taking out appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and not pressing this petition for this parcels of lands may not be treated as an impediment in any manner whatsoever for taking out legal recourse in respect of those lands. So far as the remaining land bearing Survey No. 76/1 of Village Hansol is concerned, the Court may remand the matter without observing anything on merits, leaving liberty to the parties to canvass their submissions before the appellate authority. 4. Ms. Jani, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that, there cannot be any objection to such a request and she concurs with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner so far as the question of remand of the matter is concerned, and she submits that the liberty be also reserved to private respondents qua two plots to make out appropriate submissions as and when proceedings of any nature are being taken in respect of those parcels of lands. 5. In view of the aforesaid consensus between the parties counsels and parties, this Court is of the view that, without observing anything on merits, this matter is required to be disposed of and is accordingly disposed of as having not pressed. 6. The petition qua two parcels of land bearing Survey No. 76/2 and Survey No. 76/3/1 of Hansol Village is not pressed with a specific liberty to the petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings, including filing civil suit for establishing their claim on the lands in question and in case of such proceedings if preferred, this order would not hinder or help either sides in any manner as the parties in those proceedings will have to, independent of this order, establish and canvass their respective stand. 7. So far as land bearing Survey No. 76/1 of Village Hansol is concerned, the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority for deciding the appeal afresh qua that parcel of land, after affording opportunity to both the sides for supporting their respective stand, and while deciding that appeal also disposal of this matter shall not be of any avail to any one as the Court has not opined on merits of the matter. Orders accordingly. The order impugned in this petition is quashed as aforesaid and the Court has not observed anything on merits of the matter. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any granted earlier, shall stand vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs.