ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1564 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO. 1564 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO. 1564 OF 2006 IN IN IN SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO. 998 OF APPEAL NO. 998 OF APPEAL NO. 998 OF 2006 2006 2006 Sau. Meena Subhash Mahamuni @ Meena Narayan Sutar ...Applicant. Vs. Indapur Municipal Council & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.V.Y.Jadhav for the Appellant. Mr.R.S.Kate for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 2nd July, 2008 : 2nd July, 2008 : 2nd July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . This is a Civil application filed by the original plaintiff for injunction/ stay to the execution and effect and operation of Judgment and order dated 04/09/2006 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge, Baramati and further prayed to injunct the Defendants i.e. Indapur Municipal Council, Indapur, District Pune from causing obstructions to the peaceful possession of the Appellant-Plaintiff’s over the suit property and also restraining the Respondents from constructing road upon the suit property. 2. Pursuance to the order dated 10/10/2006, passed in this Civil Application, the parties have directed to ( 2 ) maintain status-quo. That status-quo has been in force till this date as not specifically vacated. However, considering the importance of acquisition and construction of road by Respondents for public at large and admittedly as mentioned in paragraph No.26 by the Lower Appellate Court that 40 Ft. vide road, has been constructed from North and South side and only portion situate infront of East side of the suit house No.793 of the Plaintiff and C.S. No.2 and 3 could not be constructed, due to obstruction caused thereto by the Appellant-Plaintiff, and in this background, the construction of public road just cannot be hampered, merely because the tenants have inducted in the three stalls and they would suffer loss. Therefore, subject to decision of the Second Appeal, if case is made out about the ownership, and loss so caused because of illegal acquisition as alleged, the Appellant is entitled for monetary compensation. There is also evidence that the Respondents are not going to cause damage to house No.793 belonging to the Plaintiff admeasuring 200 sq.fts except that the road would come at the border of house No.793 of the Appellant- Plaintiff. 3. Apart from this, the construction of road which is ( 3 ) for public at large for Indapur Tahasil and City and in view of the power provided to the Respondent Municipal Council under Chapter XI of Section 173 to 198 of Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, the Respondents are under obligation and authorize to lay out and make new public streets and or to widen and or to improve the public street. Therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, in the interest of public at large and to avoid further delay in construction of road in question, subject to rights of compensation to the Appellant in case of succession of the Second Appeal to claim compensation in accordance with law, the status-quo so granted is vacated. There is a statement made that the said status-quo was never continued though it was ordered earlier. However, pursuance to the status-quo order it appears that the Respondents not proceeded further to take steps to complete the road and scheme of widening of the road which is not in the public interest. 4. Therefore, taking all this into account, the Civil Application is dismissed. Interim order dated 10/10/2006 as not already continued to avoid further complications, stands vacated. The respondents are at liberty to take further steps in accordance with law ( 4 ) and complete the road construction pending, if any. 5. The Civil Application is accordingly, dismissed. (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.)