dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.6461 OF 2008 PETITION NO.6461 OF 2008 PETITION NO.6461 OF 2008 Subrao Vishnu Patil ...Petitioner vs. Atpadi Grampanchayat, Atpadi & ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Umesh R. Mankapure for the Petitioner. Mr.Kuldip Patil for respondents 1 and 2. Mr.P.P.Kakade, AGP for respndents 6 and 8. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 15th October, 2008. : 15th October, 2008. : 15th October, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.07.2008 passed by the District Court, Sangli, whereby the order passed by the lower Court below Exhibit "5" in R.C.S. No.33/1998 dated 27.02.2008 was set aside and thereby rejected the injunction application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in a Suit wherein a declaration is sought that the construction made by respondents 1 to 3-Atpadi Grampanchayat & others, is illegal. The subject matter of the suit is that the construction measuring 605.18 sq.mts. by alleged encroachment. As alleged, the respondents have constructed shop premises by encroaching upon part portion of land as referred above alongside of a streamlet is situated. ( 2 ) 2. The petitioner is the resident of village and also a member of Grampanchayat of respondent no.1. The suit is still pending,. Considering the material placed on record including the rival submissions, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the lower Appellate Court as rightly considered the basic principle of grant of injunction. It is rightly held that the plaintiff/petitioner failed to make out a prima-facie case; the balance of convenience lies in favour of the defendants/respondents. The allegations, therefore, of alleged encroachment and illegal construction need detail scrutiny and evidence specifically when respondents 1 to 3 being public local body who, after obtaining necessary sanction constructed the said shops. The said encroachment in no way on the land and/or property of the petitioner. The respondents/State Government and their officer are party to the proceeding. They are bound to take action if whosoever commit illegal construction. The respondent/local body is bound to follow the law and need to protect the interest of people at large. The Court has rightly observed that even if there is encroachment, in a given case, in view of Section 51 of Village Panchayat Act, the Government can allot the ( 3 ) said property to Grampanchayat. The respondents-Grampanchayat, as well as, the State Government are bound to consider this facet. Any way there is nothing to justify on record that how the petitioner/plaintiff is affected by the said construction and/or the allotment of the said shops. The petitioner is not even applied for allotment of the said shops. The petitioner by this petition is seeking to interfere with the function of public authorities. The Court has not even granted any leave and/or permission to the petitioner to raise such public issue in the suit like this which is of the year 2008. The construction was going on since long i.e. since 2004 and the Suit is filed after completion of the construction and specifically at the stage of inauguration ceremony for allotment of the shops. Therefore, taking all this into account, I see there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Court. There is no perversity. 3. In view of this, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim relief so granted also stands vacated. 4. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, status-quo as of today shall ( 4 ) continue for a period of two weeks only from today. [ ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.] ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.] ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.]