1 WP No.7476/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7476 OF 2009 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NOS.1142 AND 1143 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7476 OF 2009. Mr Prakash Shankar Wagh of M/s Kalpak Builders & Contractors. ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents Mr Denzil D'mello, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr Janak Dwarkadas, Sr.Counsel and Mr S.U.Kamdar, Senior Advocate with Ms Pooja Patil, Mr Suraj Juneja and Anooja Menon i/b Wadia Ghandy & Company, for respondent nos 2 and 3. Mr Rohit Kapadia, Sr.Counsel with Mr V.V.Jogalekar, Advocate Ms Sanaya Dadachanji, & Priyanka Patel i/b Manilal Kher Ambalal & Company, for respondent nos 4 to 7. Mr P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Counsel with Mr Pravin Samdani, Senior Advocate with V.R.Dhond i/b Tejas Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.9. Shri Ravi Kadam, Advocate General, with Shri S.N.Bhosle, AGP, for respondent nos 1,10 and 11. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 18th July, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr D'Mello appearing for the petitioner. With his assistance I have perused the orders under challenge. If the petitioner is claiming T 2 WP No.7476/2009 any right, title and interest in the immovable property, which is subject matter of the proceedings before the revenue authorities, it is clear that unless and until the petitioner asserts and proves that right, the petitioner cannot assail the orders passed by the authorities. The very fact that the petitioner’s locus is questioned, would necessitate this court going into the issues of rights, title and interest of the parties in the immovable property, which issues are incapable of being resolved in the writ jurisdiction, equally, the orders passed by the revenue authorities and the Commissioner and the Collector on the basis of the material placed before them would not, in any manner, prevent the petitioner from instituting substantive proceedings asserting the rights, title and interest of the petitioner, if any, in the immovable property. Needless to, therefore, clarify that the competent civil court will decide the issues on the basis of the materials that are placed and the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties. The civil court is, therefore, not going to be influenced by these orders in the substantive proceedings as apprehended by the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of. 2. At this stage, Mr D’Mello appearing for the petitioner, states that to enable the petitioner to file a suit in the competent civil court and seek appropriate interim reliefs, this court should continue the ad- interim order which has been made in the writ petition. This request is opposed by counsel appearing for respondents. Since the issues which the petitioner raised are with regard to his right, title and interest in 3 WP No.7476/2009 the immovable property and having clarified that his remedy is to file a civil suit, interest of justice would be served if the ad-interim order, if any, is continued for a period of eight weeks, Needless to state that the grant as well as continuance of the ad-interim order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. It is also clarified that this court has not gone into the rival contentions on merits so also on the locus as well as maintainability of the proceedings at the instance of the petitioner. All contentions in that behalf are kept open. Disposal of this writ petition will not in any manner prevent the petitioner to raise appropriate pleas even at the stage of hearing of the interlocutory application in the proceedings. 3. In the light of disposal of the writ petition, the civil applications do not survive and are disposed of accordingly. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.)