Bombay High CourtWP/913/2014others disposed off

Rajnagar Bahu-Uddeshiya Sanstha Through The President Shri. Gulabrao Baliramji Gujar And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O. P.S. M.I.D.C. Nagpur And 8 Others

2015-01-30Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.B. Chaudhari,Hon'Ble Shri Justice P.N. Deshmukh2 pages

3001wp913.14 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.913 OF 2014 (Rajnagar Bahu-Uddeshiya Sanstha and another vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

Shri H.M. Sakhare, Advocate for petitioners.

Smt. M.H. Deshmukh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1.

---------- CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI AND P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATED : JANUARY 30, 2015 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.

The reliefs prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted in the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction since learned Counsel for the petitioners has candidly stated before us that there is no document of ownership of open space on which activities are intended to be carried out. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the activities are being carried out for last 24-25 years and,

3001wp913.14 2/2 therefore, same should not be disturbed.

We do not think that merely because activities were being carried out for last 24-25 years, there is a legal right vested in the petitioners to seek any relief by way of present criminal writ petition. However, we think that the petitioners should be relegated to alternate remedy of approaching the Civil Court since there is a dispute about ownership and entitlement of the petitioners to exercise any right over the open space. We, therefore, make the following order :

Order Criminal Writ Petition No.913/2014 is not entertained for the reliefs claimed therein. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the Civil Court in view of disputed questions regarding ownership, possession and entitlement of the petitioners over the property in question.

JUDGE JUDGE khj