srk 1 pil-160-10.sxw THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.160 OF 2010 Satpati Krida Association and others. ... Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents Mr. S.G. Deshmukh i/by Mr. Abhijeet J. Kandarkar for the petitioners. Mr. Sandesh Patil respondent No.5. Mr. V.D. Patil, Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. V.A. Thorat, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. S.R. Saudagar for respondent Nos.6 and 7. Mr. Rakesh S. Patil for respondent No.4. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.J. KATHAWALLA , J. Tuesday, December 14, 2010 P.C. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, the Association of residents of village Satpati and two of its members have prayed for direction to the State of Maharashtra, Collector, Thane and Tahasildar, Palghar to take action against respondent Nos.6 and 7 for alleged illegal and unauthorised encroachment on the land, which is the subject matter of dispute in this petition. 2. According to the petitioners, the land in question was previously owned by the members of Shroff family and the land was thereafter gifted to the Gram Panchayat through respondent No.4 Smt. Vidya Vijay Mali, Member of Satpati Gram Panchayat. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the registered gift deed dated 31st March, 2008. srk 2 pil-160-10.sxw 3. The petitioners rely upon a sketch at Exhibit `D1' to the petition to indicate the location of the land. 4. On the other hand, respondent Nos.6 and 7 have contended in their affidavit in reply that the land which was retained by Shroff family and gifted to the Gram Panchayat under the Gift Deed dated 31st March, 2008 is not the same land which is shown in Exhibit `D1' but it is as shown in Exhibits 1 to 3 of the affidavit in reply of respondent Nos.6 and 7. 5. As far as the Tahsildar, Palgar is concerned, in the affidavit in reply dated 25th October, 2010, the said Tahsildar has stated that the land in question which was used as sports ground is still being used for the same purpose and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have not made any encroachments on that land. As regards the gift of the land which is the subject matter of this petition, the Tahsildar has stated that the land was gifted by the original owners to Smt. Vidya Vijay Mali, Member, Grampanchayat, Satpati and the same has been mutated in her individual name vide Mutation Entry No.2029 in the records of rights i.e. 7/12 extract. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the petition raises disputed questions of fact about location of land which the original owners of the land have gifted to the Gampanchayat, Satpati. Of course, the Gift Deed is executed in favour of Smt. Vidya Vijay Mali, Member, Grampanchayat, Satpati but the contents of the Gift Deed make it absolutely clear that the land is gifted to the Grampanchayat, Satpati. 7. Since the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit for getting the necessary reliefs in respect of the land in question, we srk 3 pil-160-10.sxw dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioners to file a civil suit before the appropriate Court and pray for appropriate interim relief. We direct that the ad-interim relief granted on 12th August, 2010 by this Court shall continue till 15th January, 2011. We make it clear that the continuation of the said ad- interim relief shall not be treated as an expression of our opinion and the Civil Court shall decide the matter independently in accordance with law without being influenced by the previous order of this Court dated 12th August, 2010 or the present order. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.