1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4704/2009. The Nagpur Improvement Trust. -: VERSUS :- M/s. Arco Enterprises and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 27, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri R.O. Chhabra, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri N. Jachak, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.4. Present respondent nos. 1 to 3 filed Civil Suit No. 55/2006 claiming to be in possession of the property against State of Maharashtra, who is defendant no.4 and present petitioner who is defendant no.2 in that matter, with relevant declaration to protect their possession. They also sought temporary injunction and Trial Court rejected the same after noticing that lands were acquired in 1976 and petitioners were placed in possession by the Land Acquisition Officer in 1982. The plaintiffs claimed possession on the basis of some agreement with sons of person from whom lands were 2 acquired and because of that agreement they claimed right as tenants to suit property. The Appellate Court found that admittedly plaintiffs were in possession and therefore, it has passed the impugned order and prohibited the present petitioner from disturbing the possession or causing obstruction to the possession of the original plaintiffs, till the disposal of the suit without due process of law. Shri Chhabra, learned Counsel contends that the petitioner is a Local Body entrusted with job of planning and it is utilizing entire acquired portion for development of Transport Plaza. The alleged agreement with sons of original plaintiffs is not on record and plaintiffs have in any case no right to suit property. The land was always in possession of petitioners after 1982. The forcible entry by plaintiffs does not confer any right upon them to suit land. Shri Jachak, learned counsel on the other hand contends that the plaintiffs are not parties to the proceedings and as the sons of plaintiffs have entered into a valid agreement with them, as per that agreement plaintiffs are in possession. He is relying upon the finding that alleged possession receipt in favour of petitioner is not signed by the original owners. His contention is alleged award if any, is not binding on sons and plaintiffs and possession was never taken by the petitioner. The plaintiffs are entitled to continue in possession. 3 With the assistance of both the learned Counsel, I have perused the impugned judgment. I find it improper to record any finding at this stage about the controversy on facts. Shri Chhabra, learned counsel has pointed out that the petitioners have already issued notices to respondent no.1 to 3 [original plaintiffs] for the eviction. The petitioners are free to prosecute those proceedings in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice as it appears that there was acquisition and a award is already published by the State Government and the land has been acquired for transport plaza is to be used by the petitioners for said purpose, the respondent nos. 1 to 3 therefore are directed to maintain status quo as on today during the pendency of the suit and they shall not encumber the suit property in any way and shall not create any third party interest. Till then the proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 55/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur are expedited and that Court is directed to decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 31.01.2011. With these observations and directions, Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Records and proceedings be sent back immediately. JUDGE Rgd.