WP 1053/11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1053 OF 2011 Dagadu Surjan Chaudhari (Died) Through his L.R. Prakash s/o. Dagadu Chaudhari ....Petitioner. Versus Sajanbai w/o. Dodha Pardeshi & Ors. ....Respondents. Shri. Amol S. Sawant, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 21st February, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Advocate Shri. Sawant for the petitioner/defendant. The respondents/plaintiffs contended that after rejection of temporary injunction application (Exh. 5) she has been forcibly dispossessed and sought leave to amend plaint to incorporate prayer to claim restoration of possession of suit property. She also sought a direction to defendant to obtain necessary permission from the State Government/ Collector in view of provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1989. WP 1053/11 2 2. Advocate Shri. Sawant contends that the petitioner right from day one has pointed that respondent/plaintiff was never in possession. Without disclosing the date of alleged forcible dispossession, amendment has been sought and this lacuna as prevailing on the date of institution of the suit is allowed to be cured by the Trial Court. He further points out that circumstances necessitating permission of the State Government/Collector for sale of land, are also not pleaded and only on assumption the prayer has been allowed and is added after almost four years. 3. The respondent/plaintiff has alleged forcible dispossession after institution of suit and after rejection of her prayer for temporary injunction. Whether her claim is right or wrong is not the issue at this stage. The petitioner/defendant can very well demonstrate that she was never in possession and relief for possession, therefore, ought to have been included in the plaint when it was presented initially. The said issue and question of limitation can be properly raised by him while seeking leave to amend his written statement, if necessary. Merits of amendment are not relevant here. 4. The question, whether permission of the State Government/Collector is necessary or whether land forming subject matter of dispute fall in affected zone or benefit zone are again the questions of facts which this Court need not go into. The petitioner can WP 1053/11 3 raise proper defence in this respect before the Trial Court. In the circumstances, I find no prejudice caused to the petitioner. Hence, petition is rejected. No costs. [ B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] ssc/wp1053.11