1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.9197 OF 2011. 1. Rajendra Bhatu Sonawane, Age 45 years, Occ.Business, R/o Pooja Medical, S.T. stand Road, Sakri,Dist.Dhule. 2. Rajendra (Nandu) S/o Dalichand Jain, R/o Maharashtra Medical, Bhdne Road, Sakri,Dist.Dhule. 3. Nagin S/o Suwalal Pagariya (Shah), Age 42 years, Occ. Business, R/o Tulshi Medical Leena Complex, S.T.Stand Road, Sakri,Dist.Dhule. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. Taslim Samsoddin Khatik, Age 60 years,Occ.Housewife, R/o Pardeshi Galli, Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 2. Javed Samsoddin Khatik, Age 40 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Pardeshi Galli, Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 3. Farukh Samsoddin Khatik, Age 32 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Pardeshi Galli, Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 4. Tabrej Samsoddin Khatik, 2 Age 20 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Pardeshi Galli, Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 5. Pravin Salim Khatik, Age 38 years, Occ.Housewife, R/o Kasoda, Tal.Erandol, Dist.Jalgaon. 6. Jayeda Shaikil Khatik, Age 35 years, Occ.Housewife, R/o Kasoda, Tal.Erandol, Dist.Jalgaon. 7. Firoja Masud Khatik, Age 32 years, Occ.Housewife, R/o Akkalkuwa, Dist.Nandurbar. 8. Sartaj Akhil Khatik, Age 26 years, Occ.Housewife, R/o Morane (Pr), Laling, Tal. & Dist.Dhule. 9. Jyotika Pradip Kapadnis, Age 45 years, Occ.Household, R/o Jai Hind Colony, Deopur, Dhule, Dist.Dhule. ... Respondents. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9198 OF 2011. 1. Rajendra Bhatu Sonawane, Age 45 years, Occ.Business, R/o Pooja Medical, S.T.Stand Road, Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 2. Rajendra (Nandu) S/o Dalichand Jain, Age 43 years, Occ.Business, R/o Maharashtra Medical Bhdne Road, Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 3 3.Nagin S/o Suwalal Pagariya (Shah), Age 42 years, Occ.Business, R/o Tulshi Medical Leena Complex, S.T.Stand Road, Sakri, Dist.Dhule. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. Shabbir Umar Khatik, Age 50 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Chand Tara Muhalla, Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 2. Jyotika Pradip Kapadnis, Age 45 years, Occ.Household, R/o Jai Hind Colony, Deopur, Dhule, Dist.Dhule. ... Respondents. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9199 OF 2011 1. Rajendra Bhatu Sonawane, Age 45 years, Occ.Business, R/o Pooja Medical, S.T.Stand Road, Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 2. Rajendra (Nandu) S/o Dalichand Jain, Age 43 years, Occ.Business, R/o Maharashtra Medical Bhdne Road, Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 3.Nagin S/o Suwalal Pagariya (Shah), Age 42 years, Occ.Business, R/o Tulshi Medical Leena Complex, S.T.Stand Road, Sakri, Dist.Dhule. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. Gulab Ummar Khatik, Age 28 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Chand Tara Muhalla, 4 Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 2. Jyotika Pradip Kapadnis, Age 45 years, Occ.Household, R/o Jai Hind Colony, Deopur, Dhule, Dist.Dhule. ...Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9200 OF 2011 1. Rajendra Bhatu Sonawane, Age 45 years, Occ.Business, R/o Pooja Medical, S.T.Stand Road, Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 2. Rajendra (Nandu) S/o Dalichand Jain, Age 43 years, Occ.Business, R/o Maharashtra Medical Bhdne Road, Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 3.Nagin S/o Suwalal Pagariya (Shah), Age 42 years, Occ.Business, R/o Tulshi Medical Leena Complex, S.T.Stand Road, Sakri, Dist.Dhule. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. Wasim Munaf Khatik, Age 28 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Chand Tara Muhalla, Sakri, Dist.Dhule. 2. Jyotika Pradip Kapadnis, Age 45 years, Occ.Household, R/o Jai Hind Colony,Deopur, Dhule, Dist.Dhule. ... Respondents. Mr.J.R.Shah, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.M.S.Kulkarni, advocate for the Respondent No. 1. 5 ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 08.12.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties the petitions are taken up for final hearing. 3. The present Respondents have instituted suit for possession of the alleged encroached area to the extent of 25 ares from land bearing G.Nos.675/1, 675/2, 675/3 and 675/4. The plaintiff filed application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property. The trial Court rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff preferred appeal before the District Court. The District Court allowed the appeal and restrained the present petitioners from alienating the land as detailed in clause 6 (iii) of the operative order passed by the District Court. Aggrieved thereby, the present petitions are filed. 4. It appears that the suit property in each of the suit is only 25 ares land and the order passed by the District Court shows that the defendants are restrained from alienating the total land held by them. When the total land is not the suit property, the appellate Court could not have clamped injunction over the whole property owned by the petitioners. The order of injunction can at the most be with regard to the suit property. 5. The suit is for possession of the alleged encroached area. The same is yet to be proved. However, the subject matter of the suit also needs to be protected. 6. The alleged encroachment can only be proved after the parties have adduced their evidence at the time of final adjudication. At this stage, it would be premature to comment upon 7 the same. Mr.Shah, learned counsel submits that because of the present orders, the NA permission is not being granted. Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel submits that it is not for the said reason, the said permission is not granted. The said permission was granted and it was challenged by the present Respondents and the same is subjudice. This Court is not concerned with the said dispute about the grant/non-grant of NA permission. The authorities may decide the same on its own merits. 7. In light of the above, I pass the following order : (a) The impugned order passed by the District Court is quashed and set aside. The petitioners are restrained from alienating 25 ares land of each suit. Save and except the same, there is no prohibitory orders against the petitioners. (b) Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs. 8 (c) Taking into account the nature of the suit, the trial Court shall expeditiously decide the suit within a period of nine (9) months from today. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp919711