1 W.P. 9244.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9244 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders ................................ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 05/12/2011. Mr. P.B.Rakhunde, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.B.Choudhari, Addl. Govt. Pleader for State. ............................. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. Rakhunde, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner has filed Suit for injunction restraining the respondents from allotting the plot to Maji Sainik Sevabhavi Sanstha towards the southern side. The petitioner is the owner of G.No. 163/3/1 and if the plot is allotted by the respondents, then the road would be blocked and there would be no access to the petitioner. The Map would show the existence of the road. In such circumstances, the access to the plot owners of plot Nos. 7,8 and 11 would be totally blocked. The learned counsel contends that the Courts below have not properly appreciated 2 W.P. 9244.2011 the Map filed on record. The learned counsel further contends that if the relief as prayed is not granted, then the very purpose of filing of the Suit shall stand frustrated. According to the leaned counsel, the trial Court as well as the District Court while rejecting the temporary injunction application, have not considered this aspect. The plaintiff has proved the prima facie case. Even the non agricultural permission is granted. 2. The learned Additional Govt. Pleader supports the order. 3. The Courts below have considered the certified copy of the Map of S.No. 164 and it is found that on the northern side of the suit land, there is gavthan. According to the plaintiff, on the southern side, there is road but according to the defendants, there is gavthan. The Court has observed that even the office of Benar scheme is constructed in the year 1993 which is near to the plot allotted to the institute of Ex- serviceman. This shows that there is existence of gavthan area. The Courts have also observed that it would be appropriate to get the land measured, particularly northern boundary to come to the definite conclusion. 4. The Courts at this stage are required to only consider prima facie case. The Court has prima facie considered the aspects and rejected the application having come to the 3 W.P. 9244.2011 plausible conclusion. In view of that, the Writ Petition does not require any consideration. 5. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 6. Needless to state that the observations made are only prima facie in nature and after the evidence adduced, the Court would come to an independent conclusion dehors the observations made herein. The parties are at liberty to take appropriate steps for measurement of the land as observed in the order of the District Court. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/W.P. 9244.2011