IMPORTANT POINT
Owner of a land-locked plot is entitled to right of way.

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. One Khatau Bhanji (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bhanji’) was said to be the owner of Original Plot No.227 measuring 4874.95 sq. yards within the city of Mumbai. The Arbitrator appointed under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1966 Act’) passed an Award on 24.2.1962 in respect of the said plot and Original Plot No.231 owned by one Javle. In terms of the Award, Javle lost all his rights to Original Plot No.231 while Original Plot No. 227 was divided into plot No. 878 (1000 sq. yards), plot No.879 (3647 sq. yds.) and plot No. 877. By virtue of the said Award, Bhanji was given Final Plot No. 879 measuring 3647 square yards in lieu of Original Plot No.227, while Javle was given plot No.878 measuring 1000 square yards in lieu of Original Plot No.231, and Plot No.877 was earmarked for the construction of a 40 feet Development Plan Road (hereinafter referred to as ‘DP Road’).

3. The appellants herein claimed that they had been granted lease of 1305 sq. yards. out of plot No.879 on 20.10.1962 by Bhanji, which was contiguous to plot No.878, which was also under the occupation of the appellants. The appellant No.1 claims to have been running an automobile garage and carrying on other connected activities on the said properties since 1979 and in connection with the business it had two motorable accesses to plot No.878 through the portion of plot No.879 demised in favour of the appellant by Bhanji, for egress and ingress to and from the public road. According to the appellants there was no other motorable access either to plot No.878 or the portion of the plot No.879 under the occupation of the appellants.

4. According to the appellants in an attempt to have them evicted from plot No.878 Javle complained to the Bombay Municipal Corporation that the said plot was being used by the appellants for commercial purposes although in the Development Plan the same had been earmarked for residential purposes. On such complaint notices were issued for removal of the structures in which such commercial activities were being carried out. Ultimately, however, plot No.878 was purchased by the appellants from Javle and no further steps were taken by the Bombay Municipal Corporation pursuant to the said notices.

5. In the meantime, the respondent No.1 acquired Bhanji’s interest in the remaining portion of plot No.879 and began obstructing the use of the motorable access from the public road to plot Nos.879 and 878.

Accordingly, on 11.6.2005 the appellants wrote to the respondent No.1 informing it of their right in Final Plot No.878 and the portion of Final Plot No.879 under their occupation together with the two access roads. Since despite the said letter the respondent No.1 brought two iron gates and building-material to block the entrance to plot Nos.878 and 879 from the public road, the appellant No.2 and the original plaintiff-Mulji Shah were compelled to file L.C. Suit No.5570 of 2005 in the City Civil Court at Bombay for perpetual injunction and by Notice of Motion prayed for an injunction to restrain the respondent from obstructing or interfering with the use, occupation and possession of plot No.878 and plot No.879 to the extent of 1305 sq. yards together with the structures thereupon with motorable access to and from the public road through plot No.879. The appellants prayed for an injunction to restrain the respondents from constructing or placing any gates upon plot No.879, pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit and also to restrain the defendant No.2, the Bombay Municipal Corporation, from approving any plans for construction of a boundary wall or gates on plot No.879, which would obstruct the free and full use of the two accesses by the appellants from the public road.

6. Considering the facts indicated hereinabove the Trial Court initially granted an ad-interim injunction against the respondent No.1 on 23.12.2005. Upon notices bein