1 wp10213.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 10213 of 2010 Mr. Mujir Ahmed Shaikh Jilani & ors. ... Petitioners v/s. The Collector of Nashik, Collectorate office,Nashik & anr. ... Respondents Mr. R.M. Hardas i/b. P.N. Joshi for the petitioners. Mr. A.I. Patel-AGP for respondents 1 and 3. Mr. V.A. Gangal, advocate with Ashok Gade and Charanjeet Kaur for respondent no.2. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED :- MARCH 09, 2011. P.C. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik dated 22nd April, 2010 below exhibit 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 159/2010 thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for temporary injunction and the order passed by the learned District Judge, Nashik dated 2nd December, 2010 in Appeal No. 41/2010 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner. 2 wp10213.10.sxw 2. The suit in question came to be filed by the present petitioners claiming that the properties mentioned in Paragraph 1(a)(b)&(c) were the properties which are in possession of the plaintiffs since last 25-30 years as tenants and the petitioners are running their shops thereon. 3. Admittedly, the land in question has been acquired by the State in the year 1983. In the development plan, the land in question is reserved for Tanga stand and shopping complex. It is the contention of the petitioners that when the land was acquired, none of the petitioners was given notice and as such the acquisition proceedings are bad in law. It is further submitted that since in the city of Nashik there are no tangas, the acquisition for the said purpose is not sustainable. The learned trial Court upon appreciation of the material placed before it has rejected the application and the Appellate Court concurring with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court has dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved thereby the present petition. 4. Shri Hardas, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that both the Courts have failed to take into 3 wp10213.10.sxw consideration that though there were documents in respect of certain petitioners which would show that they were not in possession of the shops even prior to 1983, the said facts have not been considered by the learned Lower Courts. 5. Shri Gangal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation on the contrary submits that though the land in question is acquired in the year 1983, the petitioners have not taken any objection for a long period of 27 years and the suit is filed after the belated period of 27 tears. 6. The scope of interference in concurrent findings of fact is very limited. Unless the findings are found to be perverse or impossible, it is not permissible for th is Court to interfere with the same. 7. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the acquisition proceedings were completed in the year 1983 and the award has also been passed in the same year and the Corporation has already paid the requisite amount for payment towards the award. The learned Appellate Court has also found that public notices were also issued. However, none of the 4 wp10213.10.sxw petitioners has chosen to file any objection in response to the public notice. The learned Appellate Court has, therefore, found that if the petitioners were persons interested, they could have very well raised an objection in view of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Appellate Court has, therefore, found that if the petitioners were really interested persons, they could have filed an objection under Section 5A which would have been required to be considered by the competent authority. 8. The learned trial Court has further found that the petitioners have not placed any documents on record to show that they were tenants of the suit premises. It has further been found that they have also not disclosed as to who were the owners of the property and from whom the right to possession has accrued to them. 9. In that view of the matter, no perversity is noticed in the approach adopted by the Courts below to warrant interference. 10. It is, however, made clear that in the event if any of petitioners apply to the Corporation with the documentary proof that they were in possession of the suit premises prior to the date on which the land was acquired, the 5 wp10213.10.sxw Corporation would consider the applications and consider the case of such of the petitioners for grant of alternate premises to them as per the policy of the Corporation. 11. The Petition is, therefore,dismissed except what has been observed herein above. (B.R. GAVAI, J)