Bombay High Court
Amol S/O Purushottam Patil & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 21 November, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 wp2110.05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2110/2005
1. Amol s/o Purushottam Patil,
aged 29 Yrs., Occu. Business.
2. Abhilash s/o Purushottam Patil,
aged 27 Yrs., Occu. Business.
3. Vaishali d/o Purushottam Patil,
aged 32 Yrs., Occu. Household.
4. Rohini d/o Purushottam Patil,
aged 31 Yrs., Occu. Household.
5. Suman Wd/o Purushottam Patil,
aged 50 Yrs., Occu. Household.
All R/o Vasant Nagar, Nagpur. ..Petitioners.
..Vs..
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.
2. Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur,
through its Chairman, having its
office at Sadar, Nagpur.
3. Adivasi Gruha Nirman Sahakari
Santsha Limited, having its office
at 17, Parvati Complex, Padole
Layout, Ring Road, Parsodi, Nagpur,
through its Secretary Shri Dhiraj
Meshram. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri P.V. Vaidya, counsel for the petitioners.
Shri M.K. Pathan, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.
Shri R.O. Chhabra, counsel for respondent No.2
Shri L.A. Mohta, counsel for respondent No.3.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2016 00:39:27 :::
2 wp2110.05
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 21.11.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.)
1. The petitioners have approached this Court praying for an order of
injunction against the respondent No.2 - Nagpur Improvement Trust from
sanctioning the layout submitted by the respondent No.3 before it.
2. Heard Shri P.V. Vaidya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri
M.K. Pathan, learned A.G.P. for respondent No.1, Shri R.O. Chhabra, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 and Shri L.A. Mohta, counsel for respondent No.3.
3. Shri Vaidya, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners who are the owners of the land have entered into an agreement of
sale with the respondent No.3 for 6 acres of land owned by them. He submits
that, however, only 2 acres of land was sold to the respondent No.3. The
respondent No.3 instead of submitting layout for 2 acres had submitted the
layout for entire 6 acres of land. He submits that the respondent No.3 have no
authority to submit a layout in respect of remaining 4 acres of land which is not
sold by the petitioners to respondent No.3. The learned counsel fairly concedes
that respondent No.3 had filed a suit for specific performance in respect of the
3 wp2110.05
remaining 4 acres of land.
4. It could thus be seen that the petitioner basically seeks an order of
injunction with respect of land regarding which there is an agreement of sale
between the respondent No.3 on one hand and the petitioners or their
predecessor in title on the other hand. It can thus be seen that the dispute is
purely of civil nature which is required to be decided on the basis of evidence
that will be led by the parties on their behalf and such a disputed question of
facts cannot be appropriately gone into in the extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, the petition
is dismissed. Needles to state that the interim relief shall stand vacated.
JUDGE JUDGE
Tambaskar.
