1 CA789/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 789 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 896 OF 2009 Hiralal s/o Shenfadu Shimre & another Applicants V E R S U S Ananda s/o Gavnaji Shelke Respondent Mr. R.P. Bhumkar, Advocate for the applicant Mr. V.D. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent-sole CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 21st June, 2011 PER COURT : 1. This application seeks stay of the impugned order of injunction, which prevented the appellant from lifting water from a well which is situated in suit land Gat No. 171. The respondent / plaintiff obtained this injunction. The Courts below held that the respondent is owner of this land though there occurred land acquisition proceedings in respect of the same. 2. This appeal is admitted for deciding following substantial question of law, which is framed by my learned brother earlier : “When the official record shows that the said land G.No. 171 is acquired by the Govt. in the year 1987, whether merely on the basis of the revenue entry the Courts could have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has a right over the land G.No. 171 and the well dug in it ? 2 CA789/2010 3. If the order of injunction is stayed, the appellant would be able to enter land Gat No. 171 and use the water of the well situated in it. The very purpose of obtaining the impugned order thus would be frustrated. Only because Second Appeal is admitted, such a disastrous order is not justified. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant / appellant tried to place reliance on following two Judgments of the Supreme Court : (i) State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar & Ors (1995 (2) Mh.L.J. 340) (ii) Kashi Math Samsthan & Anr. v. Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy & Anr. (2009 DGLS (Soft.) 1275 = 2009 (8) Supreme 246). He said that the ratio of these Judgments is that the Civil Court will not have jurisdiction to decide ownership of a party if the land in question is already acquired. I am afraid, these Judgments will not make much difference. At the most these Judgments will help the appellant at the stage of final hearing. What is required to be done today is to maintain the status-quo as it prevailed since prior to filing of the suit. It is proved that the respondent / plaintiff who controlled land Gat No. 171 and the well in it. The appellant / defendant could not show that he had any control of the land and of the well. During pendency of the suit as well as the first appeal the position continued, and so, at this later stage, the status-quo cannot be changed. Civil Application stands rejected. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/ca/789/10/21/6/11 3 CA789/2010