1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4921 OF 2009 Jahangeer Jainudin Buva & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Grampanchayat Arag & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.K.Chinchlikar for the petitioners. Mr.Amit Sale for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Ramesh D. Rane for the respondent No.3. Mr.N.J.Patil for respondent Nos.4 and 5. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 21st August 2009. P.C.: . This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the original plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction. The dispute relates to a well which according to the petitioners vests in the 1st respondent Village Panchayat. According to the case of the petitioners an Agreement was executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the petitioners permitting the petitioners to draw water from the said well for a period of three years with effect 2 from 13th November 2007. The reliance is placed on a resolution passed by the 1st respondent Village Panchayat. The petitioners pointed out that necessary amounts have been paid by them to the Village Panchayat. The 3rd respondent is the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad. It appears that the standing committee of the Zilla Parishad passed a resolution on 07th February 2008 by which it was resolved that the 4th and 5th respondents will be permitted to draw water from the said well to the extent of 50% and the petitioners will be entitled to draw water to the extent of remaining 50%. 2. An application for temporary injunction was filed by the petitioners. The application was allowed and till the disposal of the suit, the 4th and 5th respondents were restrained from causing obstruction to the petitioner from drawing the water from the said well. An appeal was preferred against the said order by respondent Nos.4 and 5 (defendant Nos.4 and 5). By the impugned judgment and order, the said appeal has been allowed by holding that injunction granted by the trial 3 Court was erroneous as right has been created by Zilla Parishad in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in respect of said well by permitting them to draw water to the extent of 50%. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to the relevant provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and in particular sections 55 and 56 thereof. He pointed out that in the proviso to section 55 there is a prohibition against executing a lease of immovable property for a period exceeding three years without previous sanction of the Chief Executive Officer and therefore, previous sanction of the Chief Executive Officer was not necessary. He submitted that the Village Panchayat was well within its powers to execute a lease for a period of three years in favour of the petitioners and Zilla Parishad had no power to thereafter to create right in respect of well water in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5. He submitted that the District Court ought not have interfered with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court. 4 4. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and after perusing annexures to the petition, I find that no case for interference is made out under writ jurisdiction. 5. Whether the well vested in the Gram Panchayat is an issue which will have to be decided on evidence. Perusal of the plaint shows that the resolution passed by the Zilla Parishad on 07th February 2008 has not been challenged by the petitioners. Unless the petitioners adopt appropriate remedy for challenging the said resolution, the 4th and 5th respondents cannot be prevented from drawing water to the extent of 50%. The effect of the resolution passed by the Zilla Parishad is that the well water will have to be shared equally by the petitioners and 4th and 5th respondents. So long as the resolution passed by the Zilla Parishad stands, the trial Court by interim order could not have prevented the 4th and 5th respondents from drawing water to the extent of 50%. 5 6. Considering the said resolution passed by the standing committee of the Zilla Parishad in favour of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 permitting them to draw water from well to the extent of 50%, the District Court has rightly interfered. Even if the order of temporary injunction has been set aside, the petitioners will be entitled to withdraw water from the well to the extent of their 50% share. 7. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. Writ petition is rejected. Hearing of the suit is expedited. (A.S.OKA,J)