Bombay High Court
SHRI. KRISHNA NANA KAPAREversusSHRI. DATTATRAYA BABURAO OHAL AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Rejected
Holding
An injunction cannot be granted where the petitioner himself has encroached upon the common area, and the High Court will not disturb the findings of the Co‑operative courts.
Summary
The petitioner, an allottee of plot C‑8, claimed he was allotted only 1,000 sq ft instead of his entitled 1,200 sq ft and sought an injunction against the respondents to prevent disturbance of his possession. He withdrew his claim for the missing 200 sq ft before the Co‑operative Court, leaving only the injunction claim. Both the Co‑operative Court and the Co‑operative Appellate Court found that the petitioner had encroached upon a common area between plots C‑7, C‑8 and plots 9‑10, thereby losing the right to injunctive relief. The High Court, noting the petitioner’s own encroachment, declined to interfere with the lower courts’ orders. Consequently, the writ petition was rejected.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy when the petitioner, an allottee, alleges insufficient possession of his allotted plot?
- Does the petitioner’s alleged encroachment on common space preclude the grant of an injunction against the respondents?
Subjects
- injunction
- encroachment
- co‑operative society
- possession
- common area
- writ petition
Judgment
Renuka Thakur 907-WP-12615-2016.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12615 OF 2016
Shri. Krishna Nana Kapare ...Petitioner
V/s.
Shri. Dattatraya Baburao Ohal and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Anuj Tiwari i/b Mr. Vivek V. Salunke for Petitioner.
Adv. Priyal G. Sarda with Ms. Seema Dighe for Respondent No. 1.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 22 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1) The Petitioner challenges concurrent findings recorded
against the Petitioner by the Co-operative Court and by the Co-operative
Appellate Court in relation to the relief of injunction sought by him
against the Respondents. The Petitioner is an allottee in respect of plot
No. C-8 whereas Respondent No. 1 is an allottee of plot No. C-7. It is
Petitioner's grievance that he had received possession of only land
admeasuring 1000 Sq. Ft when in fact his entitlement is to land
admeasuring 1200 Sq. Ft. However, though he prayed for relief against
the society (Opponent No. 3) for handing over balance land admeasuring
200 Sq. Ft., the Petitioner gave up his challenge before the Co-operative
Court. Thus, the dispute remained pending only in respect of prayer for
injunction against the Respondents to prohibit them from disturbing
Page No.1 of 2
22 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka Thakur 907-WP-12615-2016.docx
possession of the Petitioner over sub plot No. C-8. Upon inquiry, both
Co-operative Court as well as Co-operative Appellate Court have arrived
at a conclusion that Petitioner has encroached upon common space
towards the southern side by extinguishing the gap between two sets of
plots (Plot No. 7, 8 and Plot Nos. 9, 10). Since Petitioner himself appears
to be an encroacher over common space, the question of granting
injunction in his favour does not arise. In that view of the matter, I am
not inclined to interfere in the impugned order.
2) Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
Page No.2 of 2
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 22 SEPTEMBER 2026
Date: 23/09/2026 11:51:37
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.