1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO.5279 OF 2007 Ramkrushna Garbad Patil and others. - - - - Petitioners versus The Executive Engineer, Aurangabad Irrigation Department, Aurangabad and others. - - Respondents Shri L. V. Sangit, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri N. B. Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.2. Shri M. S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No. 3. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 26th June 2009 ORAL ORDER [ Per NARESH H. PATIL, J. ] 1. Heard. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the location of the burial ground is such that the drinking water which is provided from the nearby source would be affected. The communication made by the Desk Officer and also the communication made by the Executive Engineer, Aurangabad Irrigation Division are relied upon by the petitioners. 2 3. A civil suit came to be filed by one Kantilal Kanhyalal Jain in the Court of Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aurangabad in Regular Civil Suit No. 1057 of 2001 for declaration in respect of land Gat No.47 of village Vadgaon (Jadhav) that the notices dated 31-3-2001 and 2-9-2000 be declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff with consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from acquiring land to the extent of 50 Ares out of Gat No. 47 for burial ground. By judgment and order dated 1-12-2003, the said Regular Civil Suit came to be dismissed with costs. 4. As regards revenue entries, the proceedings were initiated and matter was decided by the Divisional Commissioner. The orders are placed on record of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5992 of 2007 filed by Kantilal Kanhyalal Jain challenging the order passed by Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad dated 31-1-2007. The said writ petition was argued by learned Counsel Shri Sangit who is arguing the present matter. By a reasoned order, the said writ petition came to be rejected. 5. We have perused the affidavit in reply filed by one Vaibhav Hanmantrao Phalke, Assistant Engineer, Grade I, Irrigation Sub Division, 3 Kannad and the affidavit in reply filed by one Hansraj Mangu Rathod, Naib Tahsildar, Kannad. The Assistant Engineer in para 4 of the reply states : " It is submitted that there is no such water supply scheme on the project of Gaddgad Medium Project as stated by the petitioners, therefore, question of pollution of the water on account of allotment of land as cremation ground or burial ground is totally false. " In para 5 of the reply, the deponent contends that there is no permanent water supply scheme as stated by the petitioners. The project is of a large area and, therefore, allotment of small piece of land for cremation/ burial ground does not pollute entire project. 6. Learned Counsel Shri M.S. Deshmukh submits that cremation ground is being used since last 30 years for Muslim and other communities. This, learned Counsel Shri Deshmukh has demonstrated from the map which is annexed to the Petition at Exhibit I. In sum and substance, we find that the petitioners have failed to establish prima facie case to restrain the respondents and grant injunction as prayed for and to question the legality and validity of the impugned communication. The facts which the petitioners 4 have raised are seriously disputed by the other side. Therefore, in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, we do not find that the petitioners have made out a case for interference. Writ petition is dismissed. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. ) ( NARESH H. PATIL, J. ) pnk/wp527907