2025:BHC-AS:6 Ajay IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 17888 OF 2024 WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 17889 OF 2024 Vasantrao Sampatrao Nalavade .. Petitioner Versus District Collector, Satara & 14 Ors. .. Respondents ....................

 Mr. Nikhil Wadikar a/w Mr. Pradip Zende, Aniket Gole i/b Mr.

Nandu Pawar, Advocate for Petitioner  Mr. Vishwajeet Kapse a/w Mr. Shailesh Chavan, Mr. Akshay Mane, Mr. Dhairyashil Phadtare, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6  Ms. Aloka A. Nadkarni, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - State.

...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : JANUARY 02, 2025 JUDGMENT :

1. These two Writ Petitions take exception to the twin orders, both dated 21.06.2024 passed by learned District Court i.e. Appellate Court in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal (for short “MCA”) Nos.48 of 2024 and 50 of 2024 whereby common order dated 08.04.2024 passed below Exhibit-5 and Exhibit-45 by learned Trial Court is upset. Both impugned orders are absolutely identical, passed in two separate MCAs.

2. Parties shall be referred to as “Plaintiffs” and “Defendants” for convenience.

3. Petitioner in both Petitions viz; Writ Petition (Stamp) No.17888 of 2024 and Writ Petition (Stamp) No.17889 of 2024 is Plaintiff No.1 and Respondent Nos.7 to 15 are Plaintiff Nos.2 to 10, whereas Respondents Nos.1 to 6 are Defendant Nos.1 to 6. Plaintiffs are admittedly owners of Gat Nos. 708, 709, 710 and 711. Aligning on the west side boundary of these Gat numbers is a vahivat road which joins the main road. This vahivat road is used for ingress and egress by Plaintiffs as private road.

4. Plaintiffs filed the present Suit seeking injunction against Defendant Nos.4 to 6. Additionally, Plaintiffs sought injunction against Defendant Nos.1 to 3 who are the Collector, Satara, Sub-Divisional Officer (for short "SDO") Satara, and Assistant Director, Town Planning (for short "ADTP") Satara from granting NA permission to Defendant Nos.4 to 6 in respect of the aforementioned vahivat road. Suit is filed on 24.04.2023 as Regular Civil Suit (for short “RCS”) No.271 of 2023 alongwith Exhibit-5 Injunction Application. After filing of Suit by order dated 27.06.2023 Defendant No.2 – SDO granted NA permission to Defendant Nos.4 to 6 in respect of the vahivat road. Plaintiffs therefore amended the Suit proceeding to challenge order dated 27.06.2023 and additionally filed fresh application below Exhibit “45” for seeking temporary injunction.

5. Learned Trial Court heard the Exhibit “5” Application alongwith Exhibit “45” together on its merits and passed common order dated 08.04.2024, allowing both Applications, resultantly granting injunction against Defendant Nos.1 to 6 until decision in the Suit proceedings.

6. Being aggrieved by the above order, Defendant Nos.5 and 6 filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.48 of 2024 and Defendant No.4 separately filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.50 of 2024 to challenge the said common order. By the impugned orders, learned District Court allowed both Miscellaneous Civil Appeals and reversed the injunction order. Hence Plaintiff No.1 has filed the present Writ Petitions. Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 10 are supporting the Plaintiff No.1.

7. By order dated 29.06.2024, this Court granted status quo and permitted parties to complete pleadings. Both sides persuaded the Court to hear the Petition finally. By consent Petitions are heard finally. 8. Common injunction order dated 08.04.2024 passed by Trial Court is appended as Exhibit “F” at page No.98 of Petition. Separate impugned orders dated 21.06.2024 passed by District Court in MCA are appended as Exhibit “O” at page No.184 separately in both Petitions. Dispute between parties is ascertained from contents of Annexure “A” – plan in the Suit plaint. Both learned Advocates have referred to and relied upon the proposed layout plan to air their grievances. They would submit that the said plan be used as reference by Court. Precursor to the a