1 SA 343.2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 343 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr. S.S.Rathi, Advocate for the appellant. .................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01/12/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff had filed Suit in the representative capacity for injunction against the present respondent contending that they are entitled for the benefit of the Govt. Resolution dated 11/7/2010 and they can not be dispossessed. They are residents of Faltan mohalla of Hingoli city since last 25 years and in view of the Govt. Resolution, they are required to be provided identity card and rehabilitation. The Trial Court dismissed the Suit. The plaintiffs preferred Appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The plaintiffs have assailed the said 2 SA 343.2010 Judgment in the present Second Appeal. 3. Mr. S.S. Rathi, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Govt. Resolution dated 11/7/2001 is squarely applicable to the plaintiffs’ case. Even as per clause 3 of the Govt. Resolution, the plaintiffs are entitled for rehabilitation. The learned counsel further submitted that when it is not disputed that they are in possession of the said property, then they can not be dispossessed without following due process of law. To butress the submission, the learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rame Gawda (D) by L.Rs. V/s M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by L.Rs. and another reported in AIR 2004 – Supreme Court – 4609. He has contended that even the trespasser in settled possession is entitled for injunction and can not be evicted without due process of law. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgment passed by the Courts below. Both the Courts have concurrently come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are occupying the foot path their occupation over the said foot path is illegal. Their presence would be the hindrance. The Govt. Resolution dated 11/7/2001 does not say that first the residents over the foot path should be rehabilitated and then only they shall be evicted. 3 SA 343.2010 5. No doubt, the trespasser in settled possession is entitled to protect his possession and can not be dispossessed without due process of law. There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent which is an autonomous body has taken law in its hands. The autonomous body is expected to follow due process of law. Unless there is anything on record to suggest that the respondent without adhering to the legal provision, has taken steps, the plaintiff is not entitled for injunction. 6. In light of the above, no substantial question of law arises. The Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law, is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. 7. Needless to state that the appellants are entitled to approach the authority for redressal of their grievances. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/SA 343.2010