Dear Sir,
You are otherwise in settled possession. You can put such board, but before raising such issuing get a stay order from the court. The relevant judgments is as follows.
===========================================================================================
Bombay High Court
Vishal Bhagwan Chandanshive And ... vs Sangli Miraj And Kupwad City ... on 31 January, 2018
Bench: Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8909 OF 2017
1. Vishal Bhagwan Chandanshive
Age 48 years, Occu. Rikshaw Driver
2. Ilahi Bandu Barudwale
Age 60 years, Occu. Business,
Both R/o. Near New Railway Station,
Tapkire Mala, Sangli,
Tal. Miraj, District-Sangli. ... Petitioners
Versus
Sangli Miraj and Kupwad City
Municipal Corporation, Sangli. ...Respondent
• Mr.Umesh R. Mankapure for the Petitioners.
• Mr.G.H. Keluskar for the Respondent.
CORAM : DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE : 31 st JANUARY, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
consent of learned counsels for both the parties.
..................................23] In such situation, when there is a clear finding recorded that the road of Municipal Council is not 100 ft. but 60 ft. and there is an open space in between and admittedly the Appellants in that suit were not held to be in possession thereof, then it necessarily follows that it is the Petitioners who are in possession of the said strip of land. If it is so, then it follows that their possession needs to be protected, which was tried to be disturbed on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Second Appeal. To this limited extent, therefore, both the trial Court and the Appellate Court should have allowed the application for interim injunction filed by the Petitioners at Exhibit-5, thereby restraining the Respondent from causing obstruction to the possession of the Petitioners, without following due process of law. If ultimately the Respondent is proved to be the owner of the suit property, then definitely Respondent has right to dispossess the Petitioners but till that issue is decided or till the Respondent follows the due procedure, the Petitioners cannot be disturbed or dispossessed from their settled possession.
24] The impugned orders, therefore, passed by the trial Court and the Appellate Court are accordingly quashed and set-aside.
25] Writ Petition is allowed.
26] As a result, the application at Exhibit-5 before the trialCourt is also allowed and the Respondent is restrained from causing obstruction to the Petitioners' possession in the suit plot without due process of law.
27] Rule made absolute in above terms.
28] At this stage, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that as the construction of the Municipal Council road is obstructed on account of the pendency of this suit, hearing of the suit be expedited. The request being reasonable, the trial Court is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from the receipt of this order.
[DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]