1 wp 7664.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7664 OF 2011 Ahmed Mohiyoddin Mohd. Khairoddin Inamdar .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri Shrikant Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. P. More, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 04TH OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The present petitioner is original plaintiff who had filed a suit for relief that he is entitled to continue in possession and the suit lands are service Inam lands with relief of declaration and injunction. On the basis of pleadings the Trial Court framed issues and on the basis of issues the plaintiff led entire evidence. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application for recasting the issues and submitted proposed issues. The Trial Court rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is 2 wp 7664.11 filed. 2. Shri Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to decide the issue of the nature of the land i. e. whether the land is service inam land or not. The issues that would be relevant are about the right of plaintiff to continue in possession on the land as Sikmidar/Inamdar. The defendants have pleaded that the land is not service inam land. The burden is upon them to prove that the land is not service inam land. The learned counsel contends that in the light of that the said issue could not have been framed and the issues proposed are relevant and material. 3. The issues have been framed on the basis of pleadings of the parties. If the plaintiff succeeds to prove the nature of suit land as service inam land, then the alienation that has taken place will have no meaning as is observed by the Trial Court in the impugned order. The evidence of plaintiff is also complete on the basis of issues which are already framed. If the plaintiff feels that the said issue of the land being service inam land cannot be decided by the Civil Court, the petitioner can avail of the remedy available to him under the statute. It is for the Trial Court to 3 wp 7664.11 consider the same. Suffice to state that the order does not suffer from any illegality. The learned counsel submits that the issue about the plaintiffs possession for more than 50 years is relevant. The Court has already framed issue No. 5 which reads as under : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to hold his possession by way of declaration and to seek relief of permanent injunction ? Said issue covers all the controversies raised. In the light of that the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to cost. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11