: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.314 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.372 OF 2008 Vandana Mangesh Borse ..Appellant. Vs. Maharashtra Maritime Board & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Shoaib I. Menon for the Appellant. Mrs.Ratna Bhargavan i/b.M/s.R.Bhargavan & Associate for Respondent No.1. Mr.B.H.Mehta, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 4. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 27TH JUNE, 2008 DATED : 27TH JUNE, 2008 DATED : 27TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : Admit. Hearing expedited. 2. Although the interim order would effectively grant the Appellant the reliefs claimed in the suit, I am inclined to grant the same in view of the facts and circumstances of this case. 3. The Appellant appears to be caught in a dispute between the Maharashtra Maritime Board and the Collector of Bombay. Each claim the right to issue the permission for parking mobile vans on the suit property. : 2 : 4. This is not a case where the Appellant has illegally or forcefully obtained any rights on the property to park the mobile vans. Earlier, the Appellant had obtained permission from the Maharashtra Maritime Board/Respondent No.1. It appears that by a letter dated 7.3.2007 the Collector informed Respondent No.1 that the land belongs to the State Government and that Respondent No.1 was not entitled to issue the permission. 5. In view of this, the Appellant sought permission from the Collector, who granted the same on 30.3.2007. There is no dispute that the consideration has been paid by the Appellant for the same. 6. In a similar matter involving the same property, by an order dated 19.6.2007 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in Suit (St.) No.2393 of 2007, it was found prima-facie that the land was owned by the State Government and interimr reliefs were granted. 7. By the impugned notice, Respondent No.1 has now called upon the Appellant to stop availing of the facility. It appears that out of abundant caution, the Appellant being caught in the dispute between : 3 : the two authorites, had obtained permission also from the Maharashtra Maritime Board. Only temporary permission of three months was granted. It is however important to note that the main permission dated 30.3.2007 comes to an end on 30.3.2010. 8. The Appellant really cannot, in these circumstances, be faulted or be penalised. Further, the interest, if any, of Respondent No.1 can be completely safeguarded by providing that in the event of the Respondents succeeding at the hearing of this matter, the Collector can always be ordered to pay any amounts paid by the Appellant to Respondent No.1. 9. In the circumstances, pending the hearing and final disposal of the Appeal from Order, there shall be interim relief in terms of prayer (a) of the Civil Application. Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. 10. It is desirable that the State Government resolves this dispuate between the two State authorities, as expeditiously as possible. ***