{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8435 OF 2010 Jaykumar Chandarlal Lokchandani Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & others Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8436 OF 2010 Kumudchandra Kodarlal Raval Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & others Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8447 OF 2010 Hiraman Waman Warule Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & others Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8448 OF 2010 Afzalkhan Rasulkhan Pathan Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & others Respondents {2} WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8449 OF 2010 Uday Sudam Deshmukh & another Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & others Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8450 OF 2010 Somnath Popatlal Jani Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.P.M.Shah, Senior Counsel holding for Mr.S.P.Shah, advocate for petitioner/s. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for Respondents no.1 & 2. Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 20 th October, 2010 PER COURT: 1 Petitioners are raising exception to the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below refusing to grant injunction in favour of the petitioner – original plaintiffs. {3} 2 Plaintiffs instituted respective suits, being Regular Civil Suit Nos.186/2010, 184/2010, 188/2010, 185/2010, 187/2010 and 183/2010, claiming decree of perpetual injunction restraining defendants from demolishing the construction raised by the plaintiffs over disputed plot. Plaintiffs also challenge notices issued by the Municipal Council in exercise of the powers under Section 189 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats & Industrial Townships Act requiring plaintiffs to remove the illegal construction. 3 In the pending suits, plaintiffs presented an application seeking order of temporary injunction restraining defendants from demolishing the construction. Defendants appeared and resisted suits by filing written statements. Applications tendered by plaintiffs seeking interim relief were also opposed by defendant – Municipal Council as well as State authorities by filing their Say. 4 After considering rival contentions, the trial Court, in view of the order passed on 03.07.2010, rejected the applications tendered by plaintiffs. The order passed by trial Court was subjected to challenge in Misc. Civil Appeal Nos. 37/2010, 35/2010, 47/2010, 39/2010, 41/2010 and 45/2010, which came to be heard and disposed of by District Judge-1, Kopargaon, who was pleased to dismiss the appeals in view of the order passed on 01.09.2010, 27.08.2010, 06.09.2010, 02.09.2010, 03.09.2010 and {4} 06.09.2010. 5 I have perused the orders passed by both the Courts below. It is vehemently contended by learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners that the provisions of Section 189 of the Maharashtra Munipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act are not at all attracted as the construction is raised prior to establishment of Municipal Council. It is also contended that in the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be desirable to maintain status quo as regards construction until suits are disposed of by the trial Court. It is also contended that recourse to the Government policy reflected from Government Resolution dated 9th March, 2001, by respondents-defendants is erroneous as the Resolution itself is not in consonance with the Highways Act. 6 Respondents-defendants contends that the construction raised is against provisions of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act. It is emphasized that the construction is coming within the control line and as such development of Highway is hampered. On perusal of the order passed by trial Court, it transpires that the trial Court has observed that the plaintiff-petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands and have suppressed facts in respect of issuance of earlier notices by the Municipal Council in respect of removal of illegal construction. The appellate Court has {5} also observed in the judgment that plaintiffs have not specified the extent of construction nor have placed on record any sanctioned plan or permission to construct. It is observed by the appellate Court that though the facts were in the knowledge of plaintiffs, they have not placed relevant facts before the Court. Considering all the relevant circumstances, both the Courts refused to grant interference. 7 In my opinion, the view adopted by the Courts below cannot be said to be erroneous. Plaintiffs also approached the Municipal authorities with a request to regularise the construction. However, for the reason that the construction raised is within the control line and causes interference in development activities of the Highway, the Municipal Council has refused to consider the request in view of the communication dated 30.08.2010. 8 It is further contended by the Counsel for Respondents that the plot, on which construction is raised, is reserved for Telecom department and Post Office and already proceedings for acquisition of land are initiated. Petitioners would be entitled to receive compensation determined in accordance with provisions of Land Acquisition Act. 9 In similar circumstances, while dealing with Writ Petition No.8049 of 2010, this Court has refused to cause {6} interference in the matter. For the reasons stated in the said judgment, instant petitions also do not deserve any consideration. Petitions are devoid of substance. 10 Writ Petitions, therefore, stand rejected. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/wp843510