Bombay High Court
Bhanudas Lodji Dhabe Died Thr Lrs ... vs District Collector Hingoli And ... on 9 August, 2021
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
WP 8085 8249 21 J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8085 OF 2021
1) Sanjay s/o Digambar Patange,
Age 35 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Mop, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.
2) Prakash s/o Digambar Patange,
Age 42 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. As above.
3) Ramkisan s/o Sambhaji Barve
(Died).
4) Baburao s/o Shivram Visawe,
Age 48 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Mop, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. ... Petitioners.
VERSUS
1) District Collector,
District Collector Office, Hingoli,
Dist. Hingoli.
2) Sub Divisional Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Sub Divisional, Hingoli,
Dist. Hingoli. ... Respondents.
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshpande Milind K.
AGP for the Respondents/State : Mr. SW. Mundhe.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8249 OF 2021
1) Bhanudas s/o Lodji Dhabe (died L.Rs.)
Trimbak s/o Bhanudas Dhabe,
Age 55 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Mop, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.
2) Madhukar s/o Ramji Bhosle,
Age 70 years, Occ. Agriculture.
3) Baban s/o Rajaram Bhosle,
1/4
::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2021 02:53:46 :::
WP 8085 8249 21 J.odt
Age 45 years, Occ. Agriculture.
4) Maroti s/o Kisan Barve,
Age 65 years, Occ. Agriculture.
5) Dattarao s/o Ramchandra Khandare,
Age 50 years, Occ. Agriculture.
6) Parwatibai w/o Dattarao Khandare,
Age 45 years, Occ. Agriculture.
7) Vitthal s/o Kashinath Bhosle,
Age 45 years, Occ. Agriculture.
8) Rameshwar s/o Maroti Bhosle,
Age 45 years, Occ. Agriculture.
9) Bapurao s/o Prallhad Sirsath,
Age 36 years, Occ. Agriculture.
Petitioner NoS. 1 to 9 are r/o. Mop,
Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.
10) Ajay s/o Kailas Gavande,
Age 16 years, u/g of Shalini w/o
Kailas Gavande, Age 52 years, Occ.
Agriculture, R/o. Kanergaon Naka,
Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.
11) Tanhaji s/o Parasram Bhosle,
Age 30 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Mop, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.
12) Trimbak s/o Panduji Barve,
Age 43 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Mop Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. ... Petitioners.
VERSUS.
1) District Collector,
District Collector Office, Hingoli,
Dist. Hingoli.
2) Sub Divisional Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Sub Divisional, Hingoli,
Dist. Hingoli. ... Respondents.
2/4
::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2021 02:53:46 :::
WP 8085 8249 21 J.odt
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshpande Milind K.
AGP for the Respondents/State : Mr. SW. Mundhe.
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 09.08.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith in both the Writ
Petitions. With the consent of both the sides the matters are heard finally at
the stage of admission.
2. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs claiming perpetual injunction
restraining the respondents/State from completing the work of a State
highway to the extent of the portion it passes through their land.
3. The learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that though
there is ample record to point out that the width of the road since long has
been six meters wide, the respondents are now laying a road which is 24
meters wide by illegally encroaching over their properties without following
due process of law. The Trial Court has appropriately considered the issue in
controversy and had rightly granted temporary injunction which has been
unnecessarily and illegally vacated by the Appellate Court in Miscellaneous
Civil Appeals under Order XLII of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. The learned A.G.P. would submit that there is no illegality in the order
passed by the Appellate Court. It has rightly considered the fact that the
issue involves and touches an infrastructure work against which there is a
statutory bar for grant injunction in view of Section 41 (ha) of Specific
Relief Act. The learned Judge of the Trial Court had overlooked this
statutory bar and had granted temporary injunction which had the effect of
stalling a public project. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by the
Appellate Court in allowing the appeal of the respondent and rejecting the
WP 8085 8249 21 J.odt
application of the petitioners for temporary injunction.
5. There cannot be any dispute rather the facts stand admitted that at
the self-same place road with six meters width has been in existence since
long. It is the stand of the respondents/State that since subsequently it was
elevated to the status of a State highway its width has now to be maintained
at 24 meters. It is this public project which is already completed up to the
petitioners' land, is now being sought to be obstructed.
6. Needless to state that if at all it is a matter of illegal acquisition of the
petitioners' land, they have their own remedies to be resorted to set right the
grievance. However, in view of the statutory bar inserted by virtue of
Section 41 (ha) of the Specific Relief Act no injunction can be granted which
has the effect of stalling progress of an infrastructure project. This is what
has been precisely noticed and pointed out by the Appellate Court while
reversing the order of temporary injunction passed by the Trial Court. I do
not find any apparent illegality or perversity in the impugned order which
takes a plausible view which cannot be interfered with by invoking writ
jurisdiction of this Court.
7. The Writ Petitions are dismissed.
8. The Rule is discharged.
(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
mkd/-
