1 wp 8035.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8035 OF 2011 Shaikh Pasha Shaikh Husen and others .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri G. R. Syed, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri P. P. More, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 13TH OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioners have filed a suit for declaration that the road passes up to the land Survey/Gat No. 149 and 150 and for injunction restraining the defendants from making any sort of construction over the area of shiv/road. Along with the suit, the petitioners also filed an application for temporary injunction. The Trial Court rejected the application for temporary injunction. Aggrieved thereby, plaintiffs filed an appeal before the District Court. The District Court dismissed the appeal 2 wp 8035.11 confirming the order passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners have filed present petition. 2. Shri Syed, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that, the said shiv is a right of access to the present petitioners. By way of the present suit, the petitioners are entitled to protect their right of access. The respondents are making construction in their land Sy. No. 148, but at the same time are extending their compound wall on the public way i. e. shiv. The learned counsel contends that if the said construction is allowed to be done, then the same would affect their right of way. It cannot be disputed that the plaintiffs have right of access from the said shiv. The Courts below have failed to take into consideration the prayer made by the petitioners in the application. 3. Both the Courts concurrently have observed that there is nothing to show that the alleged construction is on the public way. The Courts have observed that except the plaintiffs no other villagers have come forward and challenged the construction of the defendants. It is not established that the plaintiffs have started the construction on the excess portion of 1H 14R. In view of this the Courts have rejected the temporary injunction 3 wp 8035.11 application. The Courts have taken a plausible view the same needs no interference in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 4. Needless to state, in case the authorities come to the conclusion that there is existence of public way/shiv and some construction is being made thereon by any person, then there is no impediment for them to take action as per law. Taking into account the nature of dispute the Trial Court shall expeditiously dispose of the suit as early as possible. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11