1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2603 OF 2008 Namdev Dada Pisal .. Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.N.R.Bubna for the petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P for respondent No.1. Mr.Sugandh B. Deshmukh for respondent No.2. Mr.Vishwanath Talkute for respondent Nos.3 and 4. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 2nd September 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the discretionary order passed by the trial Court by which the application for temporary injunction made by the petitioner was rejected. The said order has been confirmed by the District Court in an appeal. 2. The suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff is for declaration that order dated 24th September 1976 passed by the State Government was nullity and that the petitioner has perfected his title to the suit property by adverse possession. Relief has been claimed in the suit in respect of land bearing Survey No.149 admeasuring 25 acres and 1 guntha as well as land bearing Survey No.200 admeasuring 6 acres and 20 gunthas. By the aforesaid order 2 of the State Government passed on 24th September 1976, it was held that the petitioner will be entitled to retain only on area of 2 hectares out of Survey No.149 which should be granted to him on payment of occupancy price in accordance with the rules. The State Government directed that the rest of the land held by the petitioner should be withdrawn from him and should be disposed of in accordance with the rules. It was noted that out of the suit property, the land bearing Survey No.200 admeasuring 6 acres and 20 gunthas was already in possession of the State Government which should be disposed of any similar manner. 3. It must be stated here that for challenging the aforesaid order of the State Government, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition in this Court. The writ petition was withdrawn and thereafter a suit was filed by the petitioner for injunction restraining the Collector from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the suit property. The said suit was dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The decree passed in the suit was confirmed in appeal and the said decree has attained finality. 4. As of today, the order passed by the State Government on 24th September 1976 stands which records that out of the suit property, the State Government had already taken over possession of land bearing Survey No. 200 admeasuring 6 acres and 20 gunthas. The said order directs that out of area of 25 acres and 1 guntha of land bearing Survey No.149, an area of 2 hectares shall be granted to the petitioner on payment of occupancy price 3 but the remaining land should be withdrawn from him. The present suit has been filed in March 2006 claiming declaration that the aforesaid order dated 24th September 1976 is nullity. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that all throughout possession of the petitioner has been protected and even this Court in the present petition has protected the petitioner . He submitted that the 2nd respondent has no title and therefore till the disposal of the suit the possession be protected. 6. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I find that the Courts below were right in rejecting the prayer for grant of temporary injunction which is a discretionary and equitable relief. As stated earlier, under the order of the State Government passed on 24th September 1976, out of the suit property, the petitioner could have retained possession of area of 2 hectares subject to payment of occupancy price. The petitioner has not complied with the said order dated 24th September 1976. An attempt was made by the petitioner by filing a suit in the year 1980 seeking perpetual injunction against the State Government from taking possession of the suit property on the basis of order dated 24th September 1976. Prior to that a writ petition was filed by the petitioner for challenging the said order. The writ petition was withdrawn and the aforesaid suit was filed in the year 1980. The said suit has been dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction and the dismissal of the said suit has been confirmed up to this Court. In the 4 year 2006 another attempt is made by the petitioner by filing the present suit for claiming declaration that the order dated 24th September 1976 is nullity and that the petitioner has perfected his possession over the suit property by adverse possession. It is obvious that equitable relief of temporary injunction could not have been extended in favour of the petitioner considering the aforesaid facts which are borne out from the record. 7. Hence, no case is made out for interference in extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is rejected. 8. A prayer is made for extension of ad-interim relief granted by this Court for a period of eight weeks. The prayer is opposed by the respondents. As the ad-interim relief is operating from 16th April 2008, the same will continue to operate for a period of eight weeks from today. (A.S.OKA,J)