MANSARAM MIRCHUMAL SANGTANI Vs. DHULE NAGAR PALIKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these 73 Writ Petitions are directed against the common judgment and order of the IIIrd Addition District Judge, Dhule. dated 27th August, 1990, setting aiide the order, dated 7 March, 1987, passed by the Trial Court Judge, granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners.

(2.) THE facts of the case, briefly stated are as under : all the 73 Writ Petitioners are possessing tenaments belonging to the municipal Council, Dhule, These tenaments are used for carrying on petty business. According to the petitioners, they are in possession of these tenaments and are carrying on the business there for the last 20 years. The petitioners also contend that they have got licence from the Municipal council, Dhule under the Shops and Establishments Act for carrying on their business in the tenaments in question. It is also submitted that they are paying taxes to the Municipal Council from time to time. The Petitioners had also obtained loans from banks for their business. On 1st March, 1987, some officers of the Municipal Council, Dhule alongwith a number of workers having come to the premises of the petitioners for demolition of the same on ground that they were encroachers on the public road, the Petitioners instituted suits in the Court, of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, dhule for permanent injunction. Prayer was also made for temporary injunction. On hearing the parties, the trial Court satisfied that it was a fit case for grant of temporary injunction Accordingly, by order, dated 7th March, 1987 temporary injunction was issued to the petitioners as prayed for by them. Dhule Municipal Council appealed against the above order of the Joint Civil judge, Junior Division, Dhule to the District Court, Dhule. These appeals were heard by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Dhule and by a common judgment and order, dated 27 August, 1990, the order of the trial Court of 7 march, 1987, granting injunction in favour of the petitioners was set aside. The petitioners have challenged the above judgment and order of the 3rd additional District Judge.

(3.) I have carefully considered the order of the 3rd Additional District judge passed on appeal. It appears that the learned Appellate Court did not find any infirmity in the contention of the petitioners regarding their long standing possession of the tenaments with facility of electric connection obtained on the strength of No. Objection Certificate of the corporation itself and the prima facie case in their favour which is evident from the following observations in the order :