1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.735 of 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3971 of 2008 Mandir Karyakari Mandal ... Petitioner versus Municipal Commissioner for Gr.Mumbai and ors. ... Respondents ... Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar with Shri Ashok Toraskar for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Patne AGP for respondent nos.1 to 5. Mr.V.A.Thorat, Sr. Counsel with Mr.Satish Shah i/b Tamhane & Co. for the respondent no.2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 15th June 2010 P.C. 1. Heard counsel for the appearing parties. 2. By this petition, petitioner seeks permission of the Court to take water connection for the Shiv Mandir which is alleged to be the trust property belonging to the applicant trust. 2 3. There is a dispute between the applicant and respondents regarding the ownership of the property. Revenue proceedings were initiated regarding the entry of the name of the owner in the revenue records. The revenue proceedings ended in an order dated 16th January 2008 passed by the Hon’ble Revenue Minister, Government of Maharashtra in favour of the present applicant. That order has been challenged by the respondents in the Writ Petition no.3971 of 2008. By an order on 14th July 2008 this Court directed parties to maintain status quo. In view of this order of status quo, petitioners are unable to get the water connection. Hence they have applied for permission to get the water connection by this Civil Application. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that such permission cannot be granted because water connection is not a subject matter of the writ petition and therefore granting permission would be in excess of the jurisdiction of the Court. I see no merit in the contention. It is true that water connection is not a subject matter of the writ petition. However, it is on account of the status quo order passed by this court in the writ petition that the applicant has approached this court for the permission. The order of status quo was passed in the writ petition arising out of the revenue proceedings regarding the entry of the name in the revenue records. Interpreted in that light, the order of status quo would mean that there would be a status quo in relation to the entries in the revenue records and no change would be made therein. The order of status quo prima facie does not prevent the applicants from taking water connection. In any event, since the dispute has arisen, the applicants are allowed to take 3 water connection at their own risk and subject to the condition in the event the Court that orders water connection shall be removed by the applicants at their own cost without claiming any compensation. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)