-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 685 OF 2010 Smt. Indrayani Kashinath Tari, alias Indrayani Ramrai Sawant, wife of Kashinath Tari and daughter of Ramrai Sawant, Indian National, married, aged about 67 years, resident of House No. 546, Rambhuvan Wada, Kumbharjua, Goa ...... Petitioner Versus Village Panchayat of Volvoi, Ponda, Goa, through its Sarpanch, having its office at near Gajant Laxmi temple, Volvoi, Ponda, Goa ...... Respondent Mr. U.K. Tari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. D.J. Pangam, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- A.P. LAVANDE, J Date:- 16 th DECEMBER, 2010. ORAL ORDER: -2- Heard Mr. Tari, learned Counsel, for the petitioner and Mr. Panagam, learned Counsel for the respondent. By this petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 31st August, 2010 passed by lower appellate Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 28/04/2010 passed by the trial Court dismissing the application for temporary injunction against respondent/defendant in respect of suit hut. 2. According to the petitioner, suit hut was constructed by her father in the year 1958 and thereafter respondent has no right in respect of suit hut and the land underneath. Admittedly, in survey records the property in which the suit hut is situated is recorded in the name of the respondent. 3. The record also discloses that in respect of suit hut, notice was given by the respondent for demolition of suit hut to the uncle of the petitioner namely Pisso Shamba Sawant. He filed appeal before Additional Director of Panchayat-II which was dismissed. He thereafter filed writ petition which was also dismissed. Against the Judgment and Order he preferred Special Leave Petition in the Apex Court which was also dismissed. -3- 4. On the basis of material on record both the Courts below held that the petitioner has no right to the suit hut and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to relief of injunction sought by her. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused of the record I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India. Both the Court below have not committed any error by refusing relief to the petitioner against the respondent. Having regard to the fact that the uncle of the petitioner claimed that the suit hut was constructed by him and took the matter to the Apex Court, the same makes it difficult to accept the case of the petitioner that it was the father of the petitioner who had constructed the suit hut. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by both the Courts. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. A.P. LAVANDE, J ars