*1* 905.wp.1010.2011.sxw skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1010 OF 2011 Smt.Shantabai Girma Dalvi & Anr. ..Petitioners -Versus- Thane Municipal Corporation ..Respondent .......... Mr.Rajaram P.Lote for the Petitioners. Mr.R.S.Apte i/by N.R.Bubna for the Respondent. .......... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 15TH FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. 1 This writ petition is preferred by the petitioners to challenge the concurrent orders dated 19th January 2010 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge-2, Junior Division Thane thereby rejecting the application at Exh.5 and the order dated 3rd January 2011 passed by learned Ad-hoc District Judge-2 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioners. 2 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that both the Courts below have grossly erred in overlooking the fact that the respondents-Corporation had changed the original sanctioned plan which *2* 905.wp.1010.2011.sxw provided for construction of the D.P. road at the other site. It is submitted that the same has been done without following the provisions of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act. 3 He further submits that both the courts below, without granting injunction as sought by the appellants/petitioners, accepted the stand of the corporation and rejected the reliefs as prayed by the appellants/petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation submits that both the courts below have rightly adjudicated the matters by considering the material on record and therefore no interference is warranted in an exclusive jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4 The scope of interference in the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the courts below is either perverse or impossible, it is not permissible for this Court to interfere with the same. No perversity is noticed in the approach adopted by the courts below to warrant interference. 5 The courts below, upon the material placed on record, have come to the finding of fact that the plaintiff has failed to produce any document on *3* 905.wp.1010.2011.sxw record to establish either their ownership or settled possession. As such, the test of prima facie case has not been found in favour of the petitioners and also the test of balance of convenience and irreparable injuries are found in favour of the respondent, in as much as the road in question is necessary for the use of public at large. In any case, in the event, the petitioners establishes that any damage has been caused to any of the property owned by him, the said damages can always be compensated in the monetary term. No case is made out for interference. 5 Hence the writ petition is rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J.) -