: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.886 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1062 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1099 OF 2008 Mr. Pushparaj buwasaheb Deshmukh & Anr. ..Appellants. Vs. Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.N.V.Walawalkar, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Niranjan P. Shimpi with Mr.Suresh M. Sabrad for the Appellants. Mr.Vijay D. Patil for Respondent no.1. Mr.Ashok B. Tejane with Mr. R.B.Jagtap for Respondent nos.2 and 3. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 15TH OCTOBER, 2008 DATED : 15TH OCTOBER, 2008 DATED : 15TH OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : The Appeal is filed against an order refusing to grant any interim reliefs, directing the Respondents to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit property. Apart from what is stated in the impugned order, it necessary to note a few facts. 2. In respect of the suit property a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1972. The Section 6 notice was issued in September, 1972. The award was made on : 2 : 23.7.1986 by which the State Government acquired the land for Respondent no.1. 3. The Appellants/Plaintiffs contend that they entered into an agreement for sale in respect of the said land with Defendant nos.4 to 18 who were the original owners. Respondent no.1 alleges that possession of the said land was taken by the SLAO on 5.2.2001 and on that very day the SLAO handed over possession of the said land to Respondent no.1. 4. The original owners filed Writ Petition No.2296 of 2001 challenging the acquisition. By an order dated 3.2.2004 the Writ Petition was dismissed. By the said order the other connected Writ Petitions filed by the other land-holders were also dismissed. What is important to note as far as the Appellants are concerned, is that that Writ Petition was prosecuted by the Appellants pursuant to a power of attorney executed by Respondent nos.4 to 18 in their favour. 5. The Appellants contend that by an order dated 11.10.2004 passed under Section 48 of the Land : 3 : Acquisition Act, the then revenue minister had released the said land from acquisition. This is the most vital aspect of the matter and is the subject matter of considerable controversy between the parties. 6. The Appellant’s entire case against Respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 is based on the order under Section 48. Respondent no.1 submits that the said order was never given effect to by the State Government. It was not even communicated by the concerned authorities to the Appellants or to Respondent no.1 or to any other person. They contend that the order therefore never came into force. At the hearing, there were various allegations made on behalf of Respondent no.1 regarding the said order. It was submitted that similar orders passed by the same minister have been challenged by Respondent no.1/State Government. It was submitted that there was no need to challenge the order dated 11.10.2004 by separate/independent proceedings as the State Government has itself not implemented the order as stated in an affidavit filed in Writ Petition : 4 : No.8685 of 2007. 7. Be that as it may, the order dated 11.10.2004, if it has any force in law, has not been challenged as such by Respondent no.1 as yet. It is neither necessary nor appropriate for me at this stage to express any opinion on the validity of the said order. 8. On 7.2.2006 Respondent no.1 executed a lease deed in favour of Respondent nos.2 and 3 Marathwada Mitral Mandal, Pune and the Principal of Respondent no.2 respectively. 9. In the suit, the Plaintiffs have sought an order declaring the said lease to be void ab-initio and for the cancellation thereof. The Plaintiffs/Appellants has also sought an order restraining the Respondents from interfering with their alleged possession of the said property and dealing with, disposing of or putting up any construction thereon. 10. It is important to note however that no reliefs for specific performance against Respondent nos.4 to 18 have been sought. Nor have any other proceedings : 5 : been adopted by the Appellants in respect of or for the enforcement of the alleged agreement entered into between them with Defendant nos. 4 to 18. 11. Thus, on the suit as framed, it is difficult to grant any reliefs, interlocutory or otherwise in favour of the Plaintiffs as the Plaintiffs have not only not established their right in respect of the suit property but have not even taken any steps for the enforcement thereof. 12. The importance of this aspect is that Defendant nos. 4 to 18 have availed of the benefits under a 12.5% scheme whereby in view of the acquisition of the property which commenced in the year 1972, Respondent no.1 allotted by way of a lease to the original owners, land equivalent to 12.5% of the acquired land in another location. Thus, the original owners have not only acted upon but have availed of the benefits in respect of and pursuant to the land acquisition proceedings. In view thereof and in view of what is stated earlier, it would now be unjust to grant the Appellants any reliefs. : 6 : 13. I must however make it clear that this order would not affect the rights, if any, of the Appellants against Defendant nos.4 to 18 including in respect of the lands leased to them pursuant to the 12.5% scheme. 14. The Appellants have also filed Writ Petition No.8685 of 2007 inter-alia seeking enforcement/implementation of the order dated 11.10.2004 of the revenue minister. This Writ Petition however was filed in the name of the original owners acting under the said power of attorney. That Writ Petition was dismissed by an order dated 28.2.2008 essentially on the ground that the Appellants as power of attorney holders, did not possess any power of attorney from the legal representative of the deceased. The Writ Petition was not dismissed on merits. That order therefore by itself would not prejudice the Appellant’s case on merits. 15. In the circumstances, the Appeal from Order is dismissed. The above Civil Applications are disposed of accordingly. : 7 : 16. The protection granted by the order dated 29.7.2008 by this Court in the above Appeal from Order will continue till 31.12.2008. ***