IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5561 OF 2008 M/s.G.K.Enterprises ...Petitioner Versus Ramdas Babu Patil & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Hiralal Thackar, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Amit Gor for Petitioner. None for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. AUGUST 7, 2008. AUGUST 7, 2008. AUGUST 7, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. Two Courts below have found as of fact that the possession of the suit property is already taken over by CIDCO in the year 1990-91 as noted in the 7/12 extract and the corresponding mutation entry No.243 as also the panchanama prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer at Exhibit 39(1). There is no reason to doubt the correctness of this : 2 : finding of fact. If CIDCO is already in possession of the suit property, the fact that the Petitioner has purchased the property from the erstwhile owner or that the Petitioner has been paying taxes in relation to the said property in terms of the obligation arising out of the Conveyance Deed does not take the matter any further. 3. For the present, the Court was called upon to grant interim relief in relation to the suit property during the pendency of the Suit. That relief can be granted in favour of the Petitioner only if the factum of Petitioner’s possession on the suit property were to be prima facie established. The documentary evidence however would belie the claim of the Petitioner, as the land is vested in favour of CIDCO and that CIDCO is put in possession thereof since 1990. 4. To get over this, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the Petitioner is in settled possession which fact can be established from the photographs placed on record. Photographs cannot be the basis to assume that the Petitioner : 3 : is in settled possession. The factum of possession in the present case will have to be answered against the Petitioner in the context of documentary evidence which relates back to year 1990 indicating that CIDCO has already taken over the possession from the erstwhile owner. The argument of the Petitioner that the modality followed for taking over possession by the CIDCO is unlawful, cannot be the basis to accept the Petitioner’s claim that it is in lawful or settled possession of the suit premises. Reliance placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Balwant Narayan Bhagde vs. M.D.Bhagwat & Ors Balwant Narayan Bhagde vs. M.D.Bhagwat & Ors Balwant Narayan Bhagde vs. M.D.Bhagwat & Ors reported in (1976) 1 SCC 700 reported in (1976) 1 SCC 700 reported in (1976) 1 SCC 700 will be of no avail to the Petitioner in the fact situation of the present case. For, the Petitioner has failed to establish even prima facie that inspite of erstwhile owner having lost possession to CIDCO, he had authority to create any third party right in that property or to induct the Petitioner in the suit premises thereafter, execution of Conveyance Deed notwithstanding. In fact, the said deed which itself becomes questionable once the title has vested in CIDCO after taking possession of the : 4 : acquired land. : 5 : 5. Hence, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. Dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.