1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1294/2010 Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. The State of Mah. and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. R. L. Khapre, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. V. Sohoni, Advocate for respondent no.4. Mr. Kankale, AGP for respondents 1 and 2. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 30TH AUGUST, 2010. 1] Heard finally by consent of Advocate Khapre for the petitioner, Advocate Sohoni for respondent no.4 and AGP Kankale for respondents 1 and 2, by issuing Rule returnable forthwith. 2] The short contention of Advocate Khapre is that as notification published under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation)Act, 1963 is intact, piece of land of which the Municipal Council has raised Shopping Complex is included within market yard. He argues that in this situation, Municipal Council can not interfere in market yard and cannot allot the shops constructed by it for any purpose not connected with the business of A.P. M.C. He has pointed out that there have been some rounds of litigation and lastly, the Division Bench of this Court has directed the State Government to resolve the issue. The orders passed by the State 2 Government subsequently were questioned in the Writ Petition No. 1540/2007. Initially, this Court has directed the petitioner to continue with prosecution of the writ petition but later on the petitioner has been relegated the remedy of civil suit and Regular Civil Suit No. 384/2007 has been filed thereafter in which the impugned orders have been passed. According to him, as the alleged shopping complex is in the area of A.P. M. C., the Municipal Council cannot be allowed to touch it. 3] Advocate Sohoni for respondent no.4 Municipal Council has urged that the land on which the shopping complex has been constructed belongs to Municipal Council. He states that this has been settled in earlier round of litigation and he invites attention to the judgment of the Appellate Court dated 18th October 1986 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 294/1981. He further points out that thereafter the matter was pending before the Court in Second Appeal No. 153/1987 and in the Second Appeal the parties moved Civil Application No. 702- A/1993 and in that matter on 14th April 1999 this Court has noted that the parties have amicably settled the dispute between them out of the Court. He has also stated that as per that amicable settlement only two shops were to be allotted to the present petitioner on monthly rental and the petitioner had no other claim. He has also pointed out that prayer (2) in Regular Civil Suit No.384/2007 to urge that final prayer is to implement 3 said compromise. According to him, in the circumstances, the view concurrently reached by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola and the Principal District Judge Akola needs to be maintained. 4] Advocate Khapre in reply has pointed out that the alleged out of Court settlement is not relevant at all because the controversy has been considered by this Court subsequently in Writ Petition No.2538/2005 and on 25th April 2006 the Division Bench of this Court after noticing said compromise has directed the State Government to resolve the controversy. The adjudication by the State Government thereafter from the subject matter of the present Civil Suit. 5] The facts at least for the present show that the land on which construction has been made forms part of market yard. The alleged compromise and orders of this Court dated 14th July 1999 become irrelevant after directions of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5388/2006 dated 25th April 2006. The question is creation of third party interest in shops which are admittedly raised by respondent no. 4 Municipal Council in market yard, which is under the supervision of present petitioner. It is, therefore, necessary to see that situation does not become irreversible in any way. 6] Perusal of various prayer clauses in the suit 4 as filed show that if the prayer clause 1 is granted and the order of State Government is set aside, the other prayers in the plaint become redundant. At this stage, it can only be said that prayers have been losely drafted. Advocate Khapre has urged that prayer (2) is in the alternative. However, I do not find it necessary to look into in that aspect. 7] It cannot be forgot for the petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 are the public bodies. Respondent no. 4 has invested public money and has raised shopping complex and that complex is lying idle. In this situation, it will be in the interest of justice to direct the parties to maintain status quo as on today and to direct Civil Court to decide Regular Civil Suit No. 384/2007 as expeditiously as possible. Parties shall not get any adjournment on the ground that their advocate is not available. 8] The Trial Court shall attempt to dispose of the suit as early as possible and in any case within six months from the date of communication of this order to it. Till then the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on today. 9] It cannot be forgotten that A.P.M.C. has obtained order on consent terms earlier and is enjoying possession of two shops on rental basis as per said 5 arrangement. Hence, only to show their bonafides and safeguard interest of respondent no. 4 Municipal Council the petitioners are directed to deposit amount of Rs. Two lakhs within one week and the remaining amount of Rs. Three lakhs within four weeks from today before the trial Court. The amount shall not be allowed to be withdrawn by any of the parties during pendnecy of the suit. 10] Rule is made partly absolute. No costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.