The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Mamlatdar had no power to issue an order of temporary injunction under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court act, 1966.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - These two writ petitions are filed by the original defendants in a suit/application filed by the contesting respondents under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court act, 1966.

2. By the impugned orders, the Mamlatdar and the additional Collector have found that the contesting respondents are entitled to an order of temporary injunction, thereby directing the petitioners to remove wooden fencing from the suit way, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Mamlatdar.

3. While assailing the concurrent orders passed by the aforesaid authorities, apart from contending that the order of temporary injunction could not have been passed in favour of the contesting respondents, the basic issue raised by the petitioners is that the Mamlatdar has no power under the provisions of the aforesaid act to issue an order of temporary injunction.

4. The contesting respondents i.e. respondent nos. 1 to 3 in both the Writ Petitions filed the aforesaid suit before the Mamlatdar under Section 4(1)(f) and (2) of the said act, claiming that they had a right to restoration of an approach road leading to their property through the properties of the petitioners. It was claimed that such approach road of 4 mts. existed since time immemorial for the contesting respondents to approach their property and that the petitioners had encroached upon part of the same by constructing the wooden fence. The contesting respondents prayed for demolition of the wooden fence and permanently restraining the petitioners from parking their vehicles on the aforesaid approach road. In the said proceedings, the contesting respondents also filed an application for temporary injunction, praying that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Mamlatdar, a direction ought to be given to the petitioners to remove the wooden fencing.

5. The petitioners filed their replies before the Mamlatdar and disputed the contentions raised on behalf of the contesting respondents. The petitioners in Writ Petition no.422 of 2018 filed a copy of the sale seed whereby they had purchased their property, highlighting that in the said sale deed the approach road was clearly shown as 1.5 mts in width. On this basis, it was submitted that the contesting respondents were not justified in claiming that the approach road was 4 mts wide. The petitioners stated that they were entitled to erect the wooden fencing as they had kept slightly more than 1.5 mts width of the approach road available for the contesting respondents. The petitioners specifically raised the issue regarding lack of power in the Mamlatdar under the provisions of the said act to issue an order of temporary injunction.

6. By Judgment and order dated 28.8.2012, the Mamlatdar took into consideration the rival contentions and found in favour of the contesting respondents. accordingly, the Mamlatdar partly allowed the application for temporary injunction and directed the petitioners to remove the wooden fencing, which was obstructing the approach road, during the pendency of the proceedings. There was no reference made to the issue about power vested in the Mamlatdar to issue temporary injunction, under the provisions of the said act.

7. aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Mamlatdar, the petitioners filed revisions applications before the additional Collector.

8. By the judgment and order dated 23.11.2017, the additional Collector dismissed the Revision applications and confirmed the order of temporary injunction granted by the Mamlatdar. aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petitions. This Court issued notice and continued the interim stay of the order of the Mamlatdar, which had been operating during the pendency of the revision applications before the additional Collector. Thereafter, Rule was granted and the petitions have come up for hearing.

9. Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition no.422 of 2018 and Mr.