1 W.P.92.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 92 OF 2011 Murlidhar S/o Piraji Dadewad Age : 42 Years, Occup. Service, R/o Gangakhed, Tq.Gangakhed, District Parbhani ...PETITIONER VERSUS The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani and another. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.V.D.Gunale,Advocate for petitioner. Mr.S.V.Munde,Advocate for respondent NO.1 Mr.D.R.Kale,AGP for respondent No.2. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . This Writ Petition takes exception to the order dated 23.8.2010, passed by the learned Ad­ hoc District Judge, Gangakhed, District Parbhani, in Misc. Civil Application No. 02 of 2010, thereby confirming the order passed by the learned Civil 2 W.P.92.11 Judge (Junior Division) Gangakhed, District Parbhani, below Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 106 of 2009. 2. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that by way of document at “Exhibit A” plot of 10 X 10 meter from Survey No. 248 situated at Gangakhed, District Parbhani was allotted to the petitioner under Gaothan Extension Scheme. The said document was placed on record before the trial Court. On the basis of the said document, it was argued before the trial Court that pending suit, the interest of the petitioner/original plaintiff, who is in possession of the suit property, is required to be protected. Unless his interest and possession is protected during pendency of the suit, the respondent would develop the suit property and the petitioner, who is real owner of the property would be deprived from getting fruits of the said property. 3 W.P.92.11 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the contents of the application which was filed before the trial Court and submitted that in the interest of justice trial Court should have protected the interest of the original plaintiff­petitioner herein during pendency of the suit, granting injunction against the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner. He further submits that if interim relief in the form of status­quo order is not continued till disposal of the suit, an irreparable loss will be caused to the petitioner. Therefore, status­quo order may be continued till disposal of the suit. 4. On the other hand, learned AGP invited my attention to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Collector and submitted that there was no allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner, as it is evident from the office file of the respondent ­ Collector. The Collector is Competent Authority to allot such land and not the 4 W.P.92.11 Tahsildar. The learned AGP further submits that even if it is assumed that said land is allotted to the petitioner, in that case clause 2 of document at “Exhibit A” at Page 16 and 17 of the compilation of Writ Petition has not been complied with by the petitioner. No construction was raised within one year from the date of allotment. Therefore, suit property stand re­vested with the Government and subsequently it is allotted to the Municipal Council. Therefore, according to the learned AGP this Court may not interfere in the impugned judgment and order. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent­Municipal Council, Gangakhed submits that property is allotted to the Municipal Council, Gangakhed, and Municipal Council wish to construct a shopping complex in the suit property. It is further submitted that both the Courts after appreciating rival contentions and in absence of any evidence placed on record by the original plaintiff petitioner herein, has reached to the 5 W.P.92.11 correct conclusion and rejected the application filed for temporary injunction. Therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned judgment and order. 6. I have given due consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for respective parties. It is admitted fact that except “Exhibit A” at Page No.16 of compilation, no any other document is placed on record by the original plaintiff/petitioner herein before the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court in absence of any evidence on the record showing that, the petitioner is in possession of the suit property has declined to exercise the discretion in favour of the plaintiff, and thereby rejected the application for temporary injunction. The said order is confirmed by the Appellate Court endorsing the findings recorded by the trial Court. Therefore, there are concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 6 W.P.92.11 7. In my opinion, no any infirmity can be attributed in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below. Therefore, no case is made out either to continue interim order or to grant prayers in this petition. However, in the interest of justice, pending suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 106 of 2009 is required to be decided finally by the trial Court within three months from today. 8. In the result, the petition stands rejected. The order of status quo granted by this Court stands vacated. In the facts of this case, the Civil Judge Junior Division, Gangakhed, District Parbhani is directed to decide the suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 106 of 2009 within three months from receipt of the order of this Court. The trial Court shall give proper opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and putforth their case. . It is needless to mention that concerned 7 W.P.92.11 Court should not grant unnecessary adjournments to the parties. If possible, by hearing the parties on day to day basis, the trial Court shall dispose of said suit and send the report of such disposal to this Court. It is clarified that any observations made in the orders of the trial Court, Appellate Court and this Court will not come in the way of the parties, while prosecuting the suit. Sd/­ [S.S. SHINDE, J.] MTK