Appeal From Order No.724 of 2012

26th March, 2013

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. G.S. GODBOLE, DRUPAD PATIL
Respondent Counsel: Mr. D.J. KHAMBATTA, A.R. PATIL, Ms. N.R. NARIMAN

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- This appeal from order is already admitted by this Court on 30th July 2012. At that stage, following order was passed.

"Admit. Hearing of the appeal is expedited and peremptorily fixed on 13th August 2012. Mr.A.R.Patil waives service of notice of final hearing on respondent Nos. 1 to 8."

The Civil Application No.927 of 2012 for interim relief was placed for orders before me and with the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for parties, the appeal itself is heard and disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, I have heard the learned Counsel Mr.Godbole for appellants and learned Advocate General for respondents.

2. This appeal from order challenges the order passed by the trial court below Exh.5 dated 3rd July 2012 in Special Civil Suit No.85 of 2012. That special civil suit has been filed in the trial court by the plaintiffs against the State of Maharashtra and its officials. That is alleging that the appellants-plaintiffs, who shall be hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs, are owners of Gat No.16, Survey No.70A/1/1/B admeasuring 11.34 Rs situate at Kalambe village Taluka Shahapur, Dist. Thane and more particularly described in para 1 of the plaint. In para 2 of the plaint, the allegation is that the suit property i.e. Gat No.16 bearing S.No.70A/1/1/B admeasuring 11.34 Rs was earlier part of S.No.70. The area of S.No.70 was 48 acres 23 gunthas. The said S.No.70 was further divided into 70A, 70B and 70C. The said sub-division was admeasuring as 70A(48 acres 11 gunthas), 70B (10 Gunthas-Khan) and 70C (2 Gunthas-Khan). Survey No.70A/1 was part of S.No.70A and area of said S.No.70A/1 was 48 acres and 2 gunthas. Division of S.No.70A/1 was 70A/1/1 and 70A/1/2. S.No.70A/1/1 was further divided into 14 parts i.e. 70A/1/1/1 to 70A/1/1/14. Out of this sub-division S.No.70A/1/1/13 was sub-divided into 70A/1/1/13 and 70A/1/1B. Survey No.70A/1 was divided into two separate Survey numbers viz., S.No.70A/1/1 (47 acres 33 gunthas) and S.No.70A/1/2 (0 acres and 9 gunthas). Survey No.70A/1/1 was further subdivided into 14 hissas as follows:-

S.No.	Area
	Acre	Guntha
“70A/1/1/1
to
70A/1/1/7	20	20
70A/1/1/8	4	26
70A/1/1/9	4	9
70A/1/1/10	3	14
70A/1/1/11	9	29
70A/1/1/12	2	27
70A/1/1/13	2	14
70A/1/1/14		14
Total Area	47	33

Above mentioned areas are as per the Aakar Phod Patrak/ Kami Jast Patrak of S.No.70A/1/1. It is pertinent to note that area of S.No.70A/1/1 Hissa 13 is 2 acre 14 gunthas i.e. 94 gunthas i.e. 95.01 R.

It is further submitted that, the land bearing S.No.70A/1/1 Hissa No.13 situated at Village Kalambe was owned by Smt. Posanibai Sayana Chintam and Smt.Kuktabai P. Chintam. In the year 1942 said land owners through Shri Pottana applied for the permission for non agricultural user of S.No.70A/1/1 Hissa No.13. By an order dated 31st March 1942 Mamlatdar, Shahapur was pleased to grant permission for non agricultural use in C.T.S.No.73A Hissa No.13 (S.No.70A/1/1 Hissa No.13) on the conditions specified in the said order viz., (I) residential building should be constructed in the land admeasuring 444 sq.yards 4 sq.ft. and latterine admeasuring 6 sq.yards 6 sq.ft as shown in the sketch prepared by Circle Inspector on 2nd February 1942 and signed by the applicants - appellants. Area admeasuring 904 sq.yds 4 sq.ft was directed to be kept open and on other conditions stated in the said order.

3. It is submitted that in furtherance of N.A. order, measurement was carried out. As per that measurement, the non agricultural use was permitted and shown as 1365 sq.yds i.e. 11 gunthas and 3 Rs viz., 11.35 Rs. The plaintiffs relied upon a map dated 30th December 1957. The allegation is that in terms of this N.A. order and the measurement of 1957, "Kami Jast Extract" was prepared showing the details of area of S.No.70A/1/1 Hissa No.13. The land admeasuring 0 Acre 11 gunthas and 3 aane i.e. 11.20 gunthas was separately shown as S.No.70A/1/1B, a copy of this extract is also produced on record. In short the case is that S.No.70A/1/1 was further divided into two parts namely 70A/1/1/13 and S.No.70A/1/1B. That description was also given in the plaint at para 4. The undisputed position emerging from the record is that the Dist.Judge, Thane on 5th January 1988 sent a proposal for acquisition of land from Village Kalambe Taluka Shahapur for construction of Court Building and residential quarters. This application/ proposal was forwarded by Additional Collector to Special Land Acquisition Officer with a direction to start acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

4. I need not refer to in extenso to the notification under section 6 and the details pertaining thereto inasmuch as it is stated in the plaint itself that an award was made in respect of the land bearing S.No.70A/1/1 Hissa No.13 and the area of land under acquisition was declared as 83.77 Rs. There is a reference made by both parties to the Award dated 8th March 1992, a copy of which is produced on record.

5. It is then contended that the District Inspector of Land Records by his order dated 31st March 1990 implemented new scheme for the land situate at Village Kalambe and in accordance with the said scheme, S.No.70A/1/1B was the land converted into N.A. user by order dated 31st March 1992 and was admeasuring 11 gunthas 3 Anna and 4 pai. The plaintiffs states that on 12th March 2003 they addressed a letter to SLAO Thane stating that this land, which is now corresponding to Gat No.16 is admeasuring 11.34 Rs, is a separate non agricultural land and it is neither mentioned in the notification issued under section 4 or section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act nor in the Award dated 18th April 1992. It was further pointed out that the total area of Gat No.70A/1/1/13 is 94 Rs and proposed acquisition is only to the extent of 83.77 Rs. Therefore, N.A. land has not been taken into consideration by SLAO while passing the award and it is, therefore, not the subject matter of the award.

6. In furtherance of the acquisition proceedings, new map came to be prepared but that was incorrect. The Taluka Inspector of Land Records addressed a letter to SLAO on 15th March 2003 informing him that the map of the land in question i.e. Gat No.16 appears to be incorrect. It was further pointed out that a map bearing M.R.No.145 has not been given effect to in Kami Jast Extract of 1958. The entire Hissa No.13 is shown on the map with reference to Gat No.16 and, therefore, the map be modified.

7. Therefore, a new map bearing M.R.No.670 was prepared to show the land under acquisition admeasuring 83.77 Rs from Survey No.16. A specific remark was inserted in the map that proceedings for amalgamation and correction with reference to Gat No.16 are pending with Superintendent of Land Records, Maharashtra.

8. It is alleged that the TILR addressed a letter to the plaintiffs on 22nd July 2004 informing that modification of map as provided by Section 31A is approved and new map will be prepared within 15 days. Thereafter, the new map is relied upon. It is stated that the TILR even addressed a letter to SLAO Thane informing him that the incorrect map has been corrected. It is then alleged that on 26th December 2005, the SLAO Thane tried to obtain possession of the land S.No.70A/1/1 Hissa No.13 but since the representative of the Civil Court, Shahapur was not present, the possession was not taken. It is then alleged that on an application dated 2nd January 2006 of the plaintiff for measurement of Survey Nos. 10 and 91, it was carried out and map bearing M.R.932 came to be prepared. It is stated that if the said map is perused incorrect portion can be traced and the encroachment is clearly done by defendant No.6, so as to save certain adjoining owners and their encroachment. It is then stated that on the application of Civil Court new map bearing No.1655 dated 2nd April 2008 came to be prepared to show the boundaries of the land under acquisition. Thereafter on 11th August 2008, TILR Shahapur issued a show cause notice to the land owners - plaintiffs seeking explanation as to why the map of S.No.70A/1/1 Hissa No.13 bearing M.R.932 dated 2nd January 2006 should not be reviewed/ modified/ cancelled. This show cause notice was replied by the plaintiffs and they pointed out that such review proceedings are not maintainable. It is alleged that no order is passed in furtherance of the show cause notice and reply. Then, it is stated that plaintiffs informed the learned Dist.Judge Thane regarding encroachment committed by the owners of S.No.70A/1/1 Hissa No.8 (Gat No.13 Part). It was pointed out that in view of the revised map issued, new measurement is required. It is stated that on 25th January 2011, the Deputy Director of Land Records, Shahapur issued a show cause notice requesting the land owners to remain present at the time of measurement and measurement was carried out in February 2011 but this measurement was objected to by the plaintiffs on 9th February 2011. They also filed an appeal under section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code on 13th May 2011. By letter dated 20th May 2011 the District Superintendent of Land Records informed the plaintiffs that the said appeal is filed for fixing boundaries and hence not maintainable and disposed of. Thus it is alleged that the Authority did not allow the plaintiffs to make their submissions. In the meanwhile, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhivandi addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Land Records, Thane requesting him to take appropriate steps to cancel the mutation Entry No.1 by which Gat No.16 was formed. Reliance is placed upon a letter dated 31st March 2011 in that regard and it is alleged that without giving any notice to the land owners/ plaintiffs, the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records passed an order dated 2nd April 2011 cancelling Gat No.16 and asked the plaintiffs to file objections for the proposed amendments in the map. Thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, passed an order on 6th January 2012 cancelling the map bearing No.670, 932 and 1655 dated 14th August 2003, 1st July 2006 and 2nd April 2008 respectively. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by this order the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the District Superintendent of Land Records, Thane on 18th April 2012.

9. It is, therefore, alleged that the suit property was never the subject matter of acquisition. There was no question of surrendering possession thereof to the defendants. The suit property was not acquired by the defendants. It was surrounded by the compound of barbed wires having cement poles around and separate entrance gates with lock and key and the same was fully in possession of the plaintiffs since 1942 or thereabouts. It was completely removed and destroyed high handedly with the help of local police in the presence of the members of the Shahapur Bar Association. Thus, the objections and correspondence has not resulted in the possession of the plaintiffs being protected and making such allegations and alleging that the cause of action for the suit arose on 1st March 2012, when the defendants forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit property that the suit was filed claiming following reliefs:-

"(a) that the suit may kindly be decreed with costs;

(b) that this Court be pleased to direct the defendants to deliver the vacant, peaceful and physical possession of suit property to the plaintiffs;

(c) that the defendants their servant, agent, representatives and/or any persons claiming through or under them be restrained by an order and permanent injunction of this Court from dealing with disposing of or alienating, encumbering, transferring, inducting any third party or parting with possession in respect of the suit property;

(d) that the defendants their servants, agents, representatives and/or any persons claiming through or under them be restrained by an order and permanent injunction of this Court from putting up any construction and or developing the suit property and or granting any development right in favour of any third party, person or persons, in respect of the suit property;"

10. An application for interim reliefs was filed in this suit claiming temporary injunction in furtherance of the aforequoted prayers. The defendants were served with the papers and proceedings and they filed their detailed affidavit in reply.

11. In the written statement/ reply of the original defendant Nos. 3 to 5 it has been alleged that the suit is false, frivolous, bogus and not bonafide. It has been filed with a view to stall construction of civil court building. The plaintiffs have suppressed material facts from the court. The plaintiffs' whole case is based on existence of Gat No.16. However, that itself is not existing. What has been pointed out is that Gat No.16 was never in existence. It was asserted that the property at Mauje Kalambe Taluka Shahapur now numbered at Gat No.22 (old S.No.70/1/1/Hissa No.13) was reserved for construction of court building. It has been acquired in 1992. It admeasures 83.77 Rs. Out of that 0-7-50 Rs is a road from Kalambe to Borshi. It is a zilla parishad road. That portion has been excluded and, therefore, the remaining land 0-76-27 Rs stands in the name of Dist.Court, Thane in 7/12 extracts. The suit property stated to be admeasuring 0-11-34 Rs which is also a part of larger property 83.77 Rs. However, in the consolidation scheme, this area was wrongly assigned Gat No.16. In fact the area of Gat No.16 has been shown twice and disadvantage of that is being taken and in fact that Gat No.16 has been cancelled. Once the Gat No.16 is treated as cancelled, then, the plaintiffs cannot claim to be owners of the said land. In these circumstances, they are not entitled to get any interim reliefs. There is no prima facie case in their favour at all.

12. It was highlighted that old S.No.70A/1/1 Hissa No.13 was totally admeasuring 0-93-77 Rs. and that is approximately 2 acre and 14 gunthas. Out of this land 0-10-0 Rs. was separated for Government mine. That was assigned S.No.70A/1B. The portion identified by the plaintiffs admeasuring 0-11-34 is part of S.No.70A/1/1B and that is excluded and after exclusion of the Government land the S.No.70A/1/1/ Hissa No.13 admeasured 0-83-77 Rs. In these circumstances all averments in para 4 of the plaint are false. In the rest of the written statement, this aspect has been highlighted and all allegations to the contrary have been denied. There is an explanation given with regard to the notices and orders made from time to time.

13. Upon this material the learned Trial Judge heard parties. He perused the documents and held that there is no prima facie case nor is the balance of convenience in favour of plaintiffs and they suffer no irreparable loss and injury. Rather granting interim reliefs would cause hindrance and obstacle to the ongoing construction activity at site viz., construction of court building. In these circumstances, by the impugned order dated 3rd July 2012, the interim injunction was denied and application Exh.5 was dismissed.

14. It is this order which is challenged in this appeal.

15. Mr.Godbole, learned Counsel appearing for appellants submits that the impugned order is ex facie erroneous, illegal and perverse. He submits that the learned Judge has accepted version of the respondents - original defendants as if it is conclusive at this stage. Now such a conclusive opinion being rendered at an interlocutory stage would mean that the learned Judge has exceeded his powers. Just as there was version of the respondents equally, there is an arguable case of the plaintiffs. That is based on the fact that non agricultural order of 1942 has not been cancelled. The Kami Jast Patrak of 1957 is also not cancelled. Therefore, a prima facie case is made out inasmuch as the portion of 11.34 Rs cannot be said to be part of the acquired land. There is a prima facie case because this portion has been carved out as separate area. The learned Judge has failed to advert to the materials with regard to separate area. Mr.Godbole has relied upon the 1942 non agricultural order, Kami Jast Patrak, the maps and the measurement records prepared from time to time to urge that once the action of the respondents was highhanded and arbitrary, then, the trial court should have been careful enough in scrutinising the record. He should not have permitted the defendants to proceed and make construction once there is an arguable case made out. The plaintiffs may or may not succeed at the trial but once there are serious issues arising and they require trial and adjudication, then, the learned Judge should have not refused interim injunction.

16. Mr.Godbole complains that there is absolutely no discussion on the map in the judgement and order. Inviting my attention to page 38/39 of the appeal paperbook, which contains paras 18 and 19 of the impugned order, Mr.Godbole submits that the learned Judge has merely noted rival contentions but has failed to take into account the consequences of N.A.orders, Kami Jast Patrak, maps which show that despite the acquisition, there is a substantial portion of the land which is a private property and which cannot be touched except by due process of law. An attempt is made by the respondents - original defendants to demonstrate that the said land is also part of the acquired land. Such an attempt and the highhanded act of the respondents led to the institution of the suit. For all these reasons, merely because the construction activity of court building is going on, is no ground to refuse interim injunction.

17. Mr. Khambata, Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the appellants are not entitled to interim reliefs. An interim order is discretionary and equitable relief. The appellants have not approached the Court with clean hands. The appellants are guilty of suppressing material facts. The appellants never had any right in the property. The appellants' land stood acquired and stood vested in the State. Once the appellants have no right, title and interest of any nature in the immovable property, then, the present suit was not maintainable. If it was not maintainable, then, interim injunction could not have been granted. The trial court is right in denying the same as there is no prima facie case, balance of convenience is not in favour of the appellants and the appellants will not suffer any loss or injury. Instead public interest would suffer adversely if the court building does not come up and in these circumstances, the interim injunction should not be granted. The learned Advocate General in the alternative and on merits has argued that the trial Judge has given weightage to primary documents and records in relation to the land. These primary records indicate that there is absolutely no foundation for the suit claim. The Gat No.16 does not exist. The order passed on 24th February 2012 cancells all earlier entries. Mr.Khambata has pointed out that the very compilation which has been relied upon by the appellants and containing documents will show that the appellants have collected compensation for the portion of 11.34 Rs. Even if that is assuming to be a non agricultural land, that is part and parcel of the acquired land. If it is part and parcel of the same and has been taken over by the State in accordance with law after paying compensation, then, there is absolutely no prima facie case.

18. Mr.Khambata has relied upon the documents and submitted that the order passed in 1942 styled as N.A.order is of no assistance to the appellants. If there is no separate survey number given to the suit land, even in 1971 and assuming that this 1942 N.A. order was in force, then, the appellants cannot claim any interim injunction. Mr.Khambata has taken me through all the documents, including 7/12 extracts and has urged that even after the N.A. order of 1942, there is no creation of separate plot. The N.A.Order itself cannot amount to creation of a separate or new plot. He submits that the Kami Jast Patrak is not a primary document. It was never acted upon. In these circumstances, if the primary record does not indicate that there was any separate plot, which stood out of acquisition proceedings and which continued to belong to the appellants, then, their claim itself falls to the ground and is untenable. The trial judge, therefore, has rightly dismissed the application for interim injunction.

19. With the assistance of both the learned Counsel, I have perused the appeal paper book and the compilation of documents tendered by Mr.Godbole. Mr.Godbole has placed reliance upon the 7/12 extracts and has stated that it shows that the land belongs to the appellants and has been demarcated as Gat No.16 (NA), admeasuring 11.34 Rs. Mr.Godbole, then, has relied upon a Kami Jast Patrak and has submitted that insofar as Hissa No.13 is concerned, there is an endorsement in the remark column that a portion admeasuring 11.34 Rs is a N.A. plot and has been assigned another survey number i.e. 70A/1/1B. Mr.Godbole then relied upon a map at page 91 of the paper book and submits that even that shows that there is Gat No.16 as well and this is a revised/ corrected map. Mr.Godbole has also relied upon the minutes of the meeting dated 26th December 2005 to urge that Gat No.16 is not included in the acquired portion and, therefore, is not a part of the acquired land. Mr.Godbole also relies upon a letter dated 11th August 2008 addressed by the Taluka Inspector of Land Records, to the plaintiffs and the Panchanama dated 1st March 2012.

20. Thus, relying upon all this it is the case of the appellants that there was a separate portion and which was not part of the acquired land and which fact was known to the respondents, yet, they proceeded to take it over highhandedly and without due process of law.

21. In that regard, what has been clarified by the State Government is that it is false to suggest that any such attempt has been made or any high handed act has been performed. The documents on record reflect the correct position at site. It has been pointed out that a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 24th April 1989 in respect of plot of land S.No.70A/1/1/Hissa 13 admeasuring 83.77 Rs from village Kalambe Taluka Shahapur, the acquisition was for construction of Court building and residential quarters of judicial officers. The declaration under section 6 of the L.A.Act was issued on 19th April 1990. The suit plot admeasuring 11.34 Rs is part and parcel of the acquired land admeasuring 83.77 Rs. The 7/12 extract of the acquired land are relied upon and equally the Award dated 18th April 1992.

22. Mr.Godbole produces for my perusal the award in this case and what that clarifies is that the acquired land includes the suit property. On 18th April 1992, the award, a copy of which is at page 72 of the compilation, in the column "land notified for acquisition" and "area", states as under:-

"(C) Lands notified for Acquisition:-

The lands finally notified for acquisition in the Section 6 notification is as under:-

Village	Taluka	S.No.H.No.	Approx.area H. Rs.
Kalambe	Shahapur	70A/1/113	0.83.77

(2) Area:-

The lands proposed for acquisition has been jointly measured by the surveyors of the additional D.I.L.R., Thane and the representative of the acquiring body. Joint measurement plans and statements were kept upon for inspection of the interested persons. No disputes about the areas of the lands showing joint measurement plans and statements was raised by any of the interested persons. I, therefore, accept and confirm the area of the land under acquisition for the purposes of Award as shown below:-

"It was found that a pacca road is passing through this land under acquisition. This road is already shown in the joint measurement plans. The area under this road is 0.7.50 acres under the road. So excluding area of 0.7.50 area from total area of 0.83.77 Acres, the area under acquisition, and liable for compensation is 0.76.27 Acres."

23. To my mind, when this was the material produced, then, the trial Court rightly called upon the appellants-plaintiffs to demonstrate as to how they still claim that the suit property is not part of the acquired land. In that regard, what has been relied upon is the consolidation scheme. The clarification given is that in the year 1990, which is prior to the Award, a consolidation scheme was implemented for the entire village Kalambe under the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. At that time, various survey numbers were converted into Gat numbers and consolidated village maps were prepared and corresponding numbers were given in a separate booklet for the village. The acquired land under the said scheme were forming Gat No.22. However, due to inadvertence, the suit plot admeasuring 11.34 Rs was shown as separate piece of land on the village map prepared by the concerned Department. The 7/12 extract for separate gat number was also prepared by the then consolidation officer erroneously. Then reliance is placed also on certain correspondence and maps but what has been through out the stand of the State is that once there was an acquisition and vesting as the possession was also taken over on 31st January 2006, whereas the suit is filed in the year 2012, then, merely by relying upon some isolated act, the appellants - plaintiffs cannot file the instant suit and claim interim injunction. They have yet to prove their case. The burden is squarely on them. At the prima facie stage, they are unable to dislodge the contents of the Award and other overwhelming documentary evidence.

24. The State has also clarified that when the plaintiffs were taking undue advantage of an error committed by Government officers, that in January 2012 the District Superintendent of Land Records, Thane initiated proceedings under section 32(1) of the Consolidation Act (Act of 1947) to rectify the error regarding S.No.16 and also to correct corresponding mutation entry and revenue record. He issued public notice on 12th January 2012. An opportunity was given to the appellants - plaintiffs to file their objections, they were given hearing and ultimately he passed an order on 24th February 2012 to rectify the error. That there stood any existing land and outside acquisition as a separate piece of N.A. land to the extent of 11.34 Rs (Gat No.16) was appellants' claim and which has been specifically rejected. All earlier maps prepared by the department are cancelled. Even the 7/12 extracts and mutation entries were cancelled and correspondingly the mutation entry No.547 dated 27th February 2012 was inserted in the revenue records. In these circumstances and when all the procedures were completed, tenders were floated and allocation of Rs.30.30 Crores for the project of construction of court building has been made, the construction is going on, that this is not a fit case where a public project can be halted or its implementation thwarted in the manner suggested by the appellants. To my mind, each of this material was relevant and germane and the trial court did not commit any error in taking that into account. The trial court has applied the correct principles and has observed that prima facie the only dispute is as to whether the suit property forms a part of the acquired land. In that regard, the Survey Nos.70A/1/1 Hissa No.13 (Gat No.22) is the acquired land and what is the extent and how much it admeasures has been, then, considered and with reference to specific records. Each of the documents that Mr.Godbole relies upon have been considered in paras 21 and 22 of the impugned order. It is not as if the trial court ignored any material or brushed aside any relevant document. Each and every document produced including the Akar Fod Patrak was taken into consideration. However, even after the land admeasuring 11.34 Rs was shown as non agricultural, there is no 7/12 extract in relation to the same. Mr.Godbole states that this is an incorrect finding because there is a 7/12 extract and which clearly shows the land as N.A. He relies upon the 7/12 extract of 1990 in this behalf. He also relies upon the Kami Jast Patrak. However, once there is an order passed on 24th January 2012, it may have been challenged but it is yet not disturbed or interfered with, leave alone set aside, then, the trial court did not commit any error in holding that any such documents or maps cannot be now taken into consideration, once they are cancelled. The trial court has rightly observed that if there is no document which show that the suit property has been earmarked as separate land for N.A.use, then, the acquisition record cannot be brushed aside. The award is made by the very same revenue officer in his capacity as Special Land Acquisition Officer. He had before him all the maps, measurements and records and it is only then, he considered the claim of the appellants for compensation. In these circumstances, to displace and dislodge the statements made in the award and which is of 18th April 1992 at this prima facie state would be improper. The learned Judge has referred to each of the maps and it is erroneous on the part of the appellants to urge that they have been brushed aside. The learned Judge has referred to them and equally to the further steps taken culminating in the order dated 24th February 2012. It is after considering all these materials, that he arrived at a conclusion that the appellants - plaintiffs have failed to make out a prima facie case. The Balance of convenience is also not in their favour and they will not suffer grave or irreparable loss, harm and injury but construction of the court building is a public project and if it is stopped at this stage, that would be not in public interest. The overwhelming public interest is paramount in such cases whereas if the appellants ultimately succeed, they can be compensated in terms of money or with appropriate direction.

25. To my mind, such a conclusion does not suffer from any error of law or perversity, leave alone, serious legal infirmity warranting interference in my appellate jurisdiction. By no stretch of imagination, the observations and findings at this prima facie stage can be said to be perverse. In such circumstances, I have no alternative but to dismiss this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Civil application, if any, to stand dismissed in view of dismissal of the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.