The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit was maintainable before the civil court and not barred by the provisions of Sections 71 and 177 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act 1976.

JUDGMENT

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. - Leave granted.

2. By a judgment dated 11 December 2019, a Single Judge of the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, held in the course of deciding a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908¹["CPC"] that the suit instituted by the appellant is barred by Sections 71 and 177 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act 1976²["the Act"].The High Court reversed concurrent findings of the trial court in the suit and of the first appellate court.

3. In order to appreciate the nature of the controversy, it would, at the outset, be necessary to advert to the plaint in the suit - Regular Civil Suit No 775 of 1993-instituted by the appellant before the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amravati. The appellant has pleaded that the second respondent (Amravati Housing and Area Development Board) allotted Block No 4/6 situated on the first floor at Tope Nagar, Amravati to her on 16 July 1986. The appellant claims to be in possession of the residential tenement. The first respondent is stated to be in occupation of a ground floor tenement in the same building bearing Block No 4/2. According to the appellant, the first respondent made an illegal and unauthorized construction in an open vacant site situated in the northern and eastern side of the block. This has been depicted in a plan, which is annexed to the plaint. The first respondent is alleged to have constructed four rooms, as a consequence of which the appellant claims that her easements have been affected. The appellant has alleged the following disturbances to her easements:

i. The privacy, light, and air of the appellant's block have been affected;

ii. The first respondent is alleged to have constructed a stair case to gain access to the terrace, as a consequence of which the appellant's privacy is stated to be disturbed;

iii. The first respondent has removed a water pipeline, as a result of which the water supply to the property of the appellant is affected; and

iv. The first respondent has locked the service line for the cleaning of the septic tank.

4. It is contended by the appellant that she had raised complaints against the illegal construction by the first respondent to the second respondent and that she also issued notices to the first and second respondents for removing the construction. The first and the second respondents did not respond to the complaints and notices. The appellant instituted a suit seeking the following reliefs:

"PRAYER

It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass a decree in mandatory forms giving directions to both the defendants to remove the illegal and unauthorized construction made by the defendant no. 1 on the open site, which is situated towards the east and north to the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1's tenant as shown by letters A B C D in the map and further be pleased to grant permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from making any constructions over this open site and be directed to keep open the said open site as it was.

2. The defendants be directed to restore the water connections as it was prior to its removal for the plaintiffs tenement and further be directed to grant to temporary injunction to remove by obstruction which have been created in the service line and the defendant be restrained by grant of permanent injunction in the service line.

3. The defendant no. 1 further be restrained by grant of permanent injunction from making encroachment or making any construction in this open site and causing any nuisance to the plaintiff in respect of to occupy her tenement on first floor.

4. Costs of this suit be added on the defendants."

5. The first respondent filed a written statement contending that the civil court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit under the provisions Section 71 read with Section 177 of the Act. The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amravati held that