wp8302-10.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8302 OF 2010 Suresh Namdeo Suryavanshi .. Petitioner Versus Administrator and Divisional Commissioner Konkan Division & Ors... Respondents Mr.Sandeep Dubey for petitioner Mr.Nilesh Zalte i/b. J.G.Reddy for respondent No.3 Mr.S.N.Bhosale, AGP for respondent No.2 Mr.C.K.Tripathi for respondent No.4 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 5th August 2011. P.C.: 1] Heard both sides. While arguing this matter, it is contended by the petitioners’ Advocate that respondent No.4 has executed a deed of surrender which is in possession of the petitioner and it bears signature of respondent No.4. It is also contended that the petitioner was in possession of the premises since 1994 and that he is actual occupant in respect of the original structure. wp8302-10.doc 2 2] It is pointed out by respondent No.4 that he has not signed any document of surrender and that there is forgery committed for which a police complaint is also filed. 3] It is clear that the parties are placing their version with regard to the alleged surrender. If the petitioner is stating that he was in possession of the premises in the year 1994, having acquired the same from respondent No.4 under written document, then, in my view, the controversy qua them must be resolved by a competent civil court. The petitioner, must therefore, approach competent civil court and seek appropriate interim and final orders. The SRA will abide by the outcome of such litigation. 4] Petitioner’s Advocate states that within a period of four weeks from today, he will approach the competent civil court and apply for interim reliefs to protect the structure and his rights therein. wp8302-10.doc 3 5] He further submits that to enable the petitioner to pursue this course ad-interim order passed by this Court be continued as otherwise the petitioner will be evicted. 6] Having heard both sides and finding that the controversy between the petitioner and respondent No.4 so also the case of the genuineness of the documents pleaded cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction and the petitioner will have to approach a competent civil court, to enable the petitioner to do so ad-interim order dated 15th October 2010 is continued for a period of four weeks from today, but without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all parties. It is clarified that while disposing of this petition, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions and the controversy between two private parties must be resolved by the mode available in law and irrespective of the order of the SRA in this case. It would be open for both sides to place their version before the competent civil court essentially with regard wp8302-10.doc 4 to the document that is propounded by the petitioner. 7] Needless to state that if any ad-interim/ interim order is not granted by the civil court the petitioner shall be evicted from the subject premises and thereafter, the same will be handed over to the respondent No.4. Petition disposed off accordingly. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)