1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.125 OF 2010. Nandkishor S/o Sitaram Agrawal and others ... Appellants. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.P.Latange, advocate for the appellants. Mrs.R.K.Ladda, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 07.10.2010. PER COURT 1. This is plaintiffs' Second Appeal. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for simpliciter injunction against the Respondents restraining them from interfering in their possession over 2 the suit property admeasuring 2 acres 27 gunthas bearing S.No.93/2/3. The trial Court decreed the suit. The defendants preferred an appeal. The appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and allowed the appeal, thereby dismissing the suit. The plaintiffs have approached this Court assailing the judgment of the lower appellate Court. 2. Mr.Latange, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have been issued certificate U/s 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act in the year 1990. There is also possession receipt executed by the competent authority delivering the possession of 2 acres 27 gunthas i.e. the suit land. In wake of such overwhelming evidence, the lower appellate Court could not have disturbed the finding of fact. He further submitted that in the simpliciter suit for injunction, the Civil Court could not have declared the tenancy certificate (Exh.44) issued by the competent authority as void, abinitio. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in a 3 case of "Sau.Saraswatibai Trimbak Gaikwad Vs. Damodhar D.Motiwale and others" AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1568, to substantiate his contention that the certificate issued under Tenancy Act, is a conclusive proof of ownership. Mr.Latange, also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Rame Gowda (D) by Lrs. Vs. M.Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. and another" (2004) 1 SCC 769, to contend that in a suit for injunction only factum of possession is relevant and even a trespasser in a settled position is entitled to an injunction. As such even if it is assumed that the State had acquired the land in the year 1962 and award was passed, still, as the plaintiffs have proved their possession by documentary evidence they are entitled for injunction. 3. Per contra, Mrs.Ladda, learned Asstt.Govt. Pleader submitted that the land has been acquired after following due procedure of law and award has also been passed in respect of 4 acres 27 gunthas of the land. The Police Station is also erected, so also the residential 4 quarters. There could not have been a declaration of tenancy in the year 1990, after the land was acquired in the year 1962. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the plaintiffs were the tenants then according to the learned Asstt.Govt. Pleader, the plaintiffs would be entitled for share in the compensation amount. The compensation amount pursuant to the award has also been paid to the land holders. 4. With the assistance of the respective parties, I have gone through the judgments. The certificate U/s 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, has been produced and the same is not a disputed fact. 5. No doubt, there is a panchanama and the possession receipt produced on record in favour of the plaintiffs but the same is without notice to the Respondents/Defendants As such the Respondents can not be bound by the same. The fact that there is existence of the Police Station and also residential quarters is proved fact. Any certificate which is obtained behind 5 the back of the Respondents would not be binding on the Respondents but at the same time the certificate can be set aside only in accordance with law and not in any collateral proceedings. The suit was only for simpliciter injunction filed by the plaintiffs. In such a case the appellate Court could not have given any finding upon the validity of the said certificate. The appellate Court has unnecessarily in para 18 of its judgment commented on the said aspect. The certificate issued by the competent authority can only be set aside in an appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. 6. Apart from the said fact as far as actual, physical possession is concerned, the Court had discussed the evidence and so also the impact of the acquisition proceedings and the fact of the existence of the residential quarters and the Police Station. The plaintiffs could not produce on record any evidence to show that the land in S.No.93/2 was admeasuring more than 4 acres and 27 gunthas, so as to show that even after acquisition of 4 acres 27 gunthas, some 6 land would remain for the plaintiffs. In absence of such evidence it could not have been assumed that even after acquisition and construction of residential quarters and Police Station, the plaintiff is in possession of any other part of the suit property. 7. In light of the above, no substantial question of law is involved. The Second Appeal is dismissed. Needless to state that the judgments of the Civil Court would not come in the way of the plaintiff to take up any other appropriate proceedings as per law. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa125.10 7