1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.223 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.293 OF 2010 Smt. Subhatrabai L. Pandarkar ...Appellant. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Abhijeet A. Desai i/by Shriram S. Kulkarni,advs. For the Appellant. Mr. A.R.Patil, AGP For the Respondent No.1. Shri A.V.Anturkar i/by S.S.Salunkhe, advs. for the Respondent No.6. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : MAY 5, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 Appellant before this Court is the original plaintiff. He claims to be owner and in possession of the City Survey No.282 admeasuring 1061.75 sq.mtrs. situated at Warwand Taluka:Daund, Dist. Pune. It was his contention that the respondent no.3, Gram Panchayat of Warwand had commenced the construction of a shopping complex on the land situated between his land and the National Highway without following the parameters laid down for the same. According to him, certain distance is required to be maintained between the construction 2 and central point of National Highway and said instruction have not been followed. He filed suit for declaration of his title on the city survey no.282 and had also sought the perpetual injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat from making any construction. The trial Court decreed the suit partly and declared the plaintiff/appellant to be owner of the City Survey No.282 but refused to grant any perpetual injunction. That order was challenged by the plaintiff in Regular Civil Appeal No.3/07. Pending that appeal, plaintiff filed application Ex.33 seeking temporary injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat from making any construction. That application has been rejected while the appeal is still pending. That order is challenged in the present appeal. 3 It was never the case of the plaintiff that the defendant/Gram Panchayat had made any encroachment on his property or that the Gram Panchayat was making construction on his land. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 , who are the Executive Engineers and Sub-divisional Engineers of National Highway Division No.6 filed the written statement contending that construction was being made against the Rules. However, that is the different aspect and the concerned authority could take action against the Gram Panchayat. Record reveals that pending the suit also, plaintiff had sought temporary injunction, which was refused not only by the trial 3 Court but also by the Appellate Court. Against that plaintiff had preferred writ petition, which was also rejected on the ground that both the Courts below had given concurrent findings that he is not entitled temporary injunction. Taking into consideration the circumstances noted above, construction is not going to affect title or possession of the plaintiff on his land City Survey No.282. It is possible that he may be losing frontage towards the National Highway but that itself cannot be a ground to stop the construction made by the Gram Panchayat. It is nowhere stated that the construction is not being made on the land of the Gram Panchayat. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, during the arguments before this Court expressed apprehension that the Gram Panchayat may encroach upon his land and make construction on the same. Mr.Anturkar, the learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat makes a statement that the Gram panchayat has no intention to make any such encroachment or to make any construction on the land of the plaintiff. Statement is accepted. In view of the statement, there should not be apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff. Any way that was never the question in the suit. 4 In view of the above circumstances, I find no reason or justification to interfere in the discretion used by the lower Appellate Court in refusing temporary injunction. 4 5 For the aforesaid reasons, appeal stands dismissed, However, the Appellate Court shall expedite the hearing of the Regular Civil Appeal No.3/07 and dispose off the same as early as possible and preferably before the end of December, 2010. As the appeal itself is disposed off, civil application no.293/10 doesnot survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)