1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.299 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8448 OF 2010 Afzalkhan Rasulkhan Pathan, R/o-Shirdi, Taluka-Rahata, District-Ahmednagar. ...APPELLANT. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through: Collector,Ahmednagar, District-Ahmednagar, 2) Tahsildar, Rahata, Taluka-Rahata, District-Ahmednagar, 3) Chief Officer, Shirdi Nagar Panchayat, Shirdi, Tq-Rahata, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.300 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8436 OF 2010 Kumudchandra Kosdarlal Raval, R/o-Shirdi, Taluka-Rahata, District-Ahmednagar. ...APPELLANT. 2 VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through: Collector,Ahmednagar, District-Ahmednagar, 2) Tahsildar, Rahata, Taluka-Rahata, District-Ahmednagar, 3) Chief Officer, Shirdi Nagar Panchayat, Shirdi, Tq-Rahata, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.301 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8435 OF 2010 Jaykumar Chandarlal Lokchandani, R/o-Shirdi, Taluka-Rahata, District-Ahmednagar. ...APPELLANT. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through: Collector,Ahmednagar, District-Ahmednagar, 2) Tahsildar, Rahata, Taluka-Rahata, District-Ahmednagar, 3) Chief Officer, Shirdi Nagar Panchayat, Shirdi, Tq-Rahata, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS. 3 ... Shri.S.R. Choukidar Advcoate h/f. Shri. H.S. Bali Advocate for Appellant in all Appeals. Shri.S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in all Appeals. Shri.V.D. Hon Advocate for Respondent No.3 in all Appeals. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATE : 16TH NOVEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Shri. Choukidar, learned counsel submits that the Appellants are occupying the suit properties as owners and had erected the structures before formation of Municipal Council Shirdi. The Appellants are running business there since long. Though their land is shown as reserved for specific purpose, the land acquisition proceedings are not initiated. The Municipal Council issued notices to the Appellants which are defective. Serious prejudice would be caused to 4 the interest of the Appellants if the impugned orders are not stayed. 3. Shri. Hon, learned counsel appearing for Municipal Council submits that since beginning it is the stand of the Municipal Council that the structures of the Appellants are located on the control line of High-way, which is called as "Dound - Manmad High-way". The Municipal Council has issued the notices accordingly. All the Courts below through-out negatived the contention of the Appellants. 4. We have perused the impugned orders. We have considered the submissions advanced. In the light of the facts of the case and the orders passed, we do not find any glaring error or perversity in the impugned orders. No interference is warranted in exercise of our jurisdiction under Letters Patent Appeal. The Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed. 5 5. Shri. Choukidar, learned counsel for the Appellant at this stage, submits that the parties shall be directed to maintain status quo as on today for four weeks. Shri. Hon, learned counsel for the Respondent Municipal Council objects for the same and submits that before learned Single Judge, identical request was made and the Court indicated the Appellants to file undertaking, which was not filed by the Appellants and therefore the learned Single Judge did not grant request of the Appellants. 6. In the light of the facts of the case and the orders passed, we are not inclined to grant the request. The request is rejected. . Authenticated copy of this order be provided to the requesting parties. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/NOV10/lpa299.10