9 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of the appellants, i.e. the original plaintiffs, it was contended that in the light of the dismissal of the suit filed by the respondents herein, being Regular Civil Suit No. 255 of 1986, which was specifically filed for getting back the possession of the suit property, the decree passed by the Trial Court directing the appellants herein to hand over the possession of the property in a suit filed for specific performance by them was erroneous. The learned counsel would contend that refusal of the Trial Court to exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiffs, in view of the fact that the permission of the Competent Authority was not obtained under Section 43 of the BTAL Act, was not a proper exercise of the discretion vested in the Trial Court. The learned counsel would contend that the permission required under Section 43 of the BTAL Act, is for the execution of the gift, sale etc. However, it is well settled that an Agreement to Sale does not confer any right and, therefore, both the Courts below had erred in relying upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Lotan Ramchandra Shimpi (supra) . The learned counsel placed reliance on two judgments of two learned Single Judges of this Court, the first of which is in the case of Sitaram Ganu Mhaskar & Anr. Vs. Keshav Ramchandra Shelor & Anr. , reported in 2001 (4) ALL MR 116 , wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that since Aswale 7/12
