1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2110/2010 ( Sheshrao S/o Ramaji Patil -: versus :- Nagpur Improvement Trust, through its Chairman & another ) With Writ Petition No.2111/2010 ( Smt. Kavita W/o Tukaram Sapkal -: versus :- Nagpur Improvement Trust, through its Chairman & another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri A.M. Ghare, Adv. for petitioner. Shri M.V. Samarth, ADV. for respondent no.1. Shri A.R. Patil, Adv. for respondent no.2. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 15, 2010. Common Order Heard Adv. Shri Ghare for petitioner, Adv. Shri Samarth for respondent no.1 and Adv. Shri Patil for respondent no.2. Trial Court granted temporary injunction to petitioner/plaintiff and thereby restrained respondent no.1 from undertaking any development activity in suit land. The respondent then filed appeal and in miscellaneous civil appeal the Appellate Court has found that identity of suit land with Khasara No.52/6 was itself was not established. Because of that finding it has allowed the appeal. Before this Court, learned counsel for petitioner has invited attention of this Court to the report of City Survey Officer dated 18/6/2008. I find its paragraph 5 more 2 confusing and hence learned counsel has produced before this Court a map which is not attested or certified by anybody. The said map shows that in a triangle between ring road and nalah Khasara No.52/6 admeasuring 0.40 acres is shown to be situated. On the other side of nalah there is layout of P.M.G. and Bodhankar while below ring road there is layout of Pioneer Co-operative Housing Society. The said city survey report cannot be understood even in the light of the situation appearing from said map. Perusal of the appellate order reveals that Appellate Court has considered the relevant documents and its finding particularly in paragraph 7 or paragraph 10 does not appear to be perverse. Consideration in paragraph 12 also shows that N.I.T. i.e. respondent no.1 it has not started any development work in Khasara No.52/6. The petitioner is the plaintiff and burden of proof to prove his entitlement is upon him in present situation. I find that no case is made out warranting interference in extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court. The development work carried out by N.I.T. is stated to be of public park. It is obvious that if ultimately petitioner/plaintiff succeeds to show his right to that land on which the garden has been or is being developed by N.I.T., the Court can pass appropriate decree in his favour and the land can be delivered to him. The activities of N.I.T. are subject to final adjudication of R.C.S. No.1606/1997, R.C.S. No.62/2010 and R.C.S. No.512/1990. The proceedings in these suits are expedited and Trial Court shall attempt to decide the same as early as possible and in any case within a period of one year from the date of communication of this order. The office of Principal District 3 to ensure that all regular civil suits are transferred in one Court. It is made clear that activities undertaken by respondents on the suit property, if any, shall be subject to final adjudication in these suits. JUDGE Tambaskar.