1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4549 OF 2010 (Shamsunder M. Khune & Ors. vs. Mohan R. Khune & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. OCTOBER 20, 2010. Heard Shri Parchure with Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners – defendants and Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents filed a suit contending that they are in settled possession and the petitioners should not disturb it. The trial Court after noticing that land in question is recorded in Nistar patra for grazing purposes, rejected that prayer. The appellate Court after finding Respondents No. 1 & 2 in possession has protected it during the pendency of suit. Shri Joshi, learned counsel has pointed out that land belongs to government and as per Nistar patra, every villager has right to use it. Hence, a temporary injunction restraining such user cannot be granted. He has further invited attention to restraining orders passed under Section 50 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code by Naib Tahsildar. His contention is in the face of those orders which are upheld even by appellate authority, the order of temporary injunction is without jurisdiction. 2 Shri Gupta, learned counsel has pointed out that the order of Additional Collector in appeal is subjected to further appeal and stay is operating therein. He further states that only existing possession of Respondents No. 1 & 2 has been protected and suit filed by the respondents is against private individuals. The facts show that Respondents No. 1 & 2 are prima facie found to be in possession and that finding does not appear to be erroneous or perverse. Their possession can be removed by a competent authority or by the petitioners in accordance with law. It appears that those steps are also initiated by revenue authorities. In this situation, I do not find any error or perversity in the orders passed by the appellate Court. However, considering the fact that villagers are being deprived of their user as per Nistar patra, without recording any final finding in this respect, proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 18 of 2009 are expedited and trial Court shall attempt to decide the suit itself finally as early as possible and in any case by 30th June 2011. Shri Joshi, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment in the case of Ganesh vs. Prakash, reported at 2000 (3) Mh. L.J. 347, to urge that respondents No. 1 & 2 have to demonstrate that their possession is legal. The issue pertains to merits of the controversy and can be looked into by the trial Court while deciding the question of grant of permanent injunction. 3 Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.