1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders | APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.66/2009 Shri G.R.Syed,Adv.for appellant Shri K.S.Patil,AGP for State. .... CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 23/11/2009. 1] This appeal challenges order dated 6/5/2009 passed by learned District Judge-I, Latur dismissing application Exh.5 filed by appellant for grant of injunction in Regular Civil Appeal No.186/08. 2] The appellant had filed Regular Civil Suit No.631/07 which has been dismissed by trial Court on 24/10/2008, wherein it has been held that the appellant-plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit land described in Para 3 of the plaint is in her legal possession. It has further held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendants have made attempt to 2 encroach upon the suit portion described in para 6 of the plaint. The appellant plaintiff is held not entitled to get the relief of injunction. 3] This judgment and decree is challenged by the appellant by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 186/08, in which an application for grant of temporary injunction Exh.5 was filed. The same has been rejected, which is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. 4] Shri G.R.Syed, learned counsel for appellant has urged that the order of injunction was operating pending the decision of the suit and after dismissal of the suit also trial Court continued the same. He further urged that it was operating even till the decision of the application Exh.5 by an order dated 6/5/2009, which is impugned in the present appeal. He therefore, submits that the appeal is yet to be decided and therefore, the appellate Court should have continued the order of injunction. 5] After going through the order impugned in this appeal, it is clear that the appellate Court has recorded a specific finding that 3 prima facie the appellant has failed to prove her possession over the suit land and plaintiff has also not brought on record any evidence to prove that the defendants are trying to encroach upon the land belonging to her, without following the due process of law. It is not disputed that the suit area is being developed for construction of State High Way. If at all it is ultimately held in the Regular Civil Appeal that the plaintiff has legal possession over the land in question, then the only question would be payment of compensation to her. Shri K.S.Patil, learned AGP has pointed out that the appellant has filed Writ Petition No.1858/09 before this Court, seeking direction to acquire the land of the petitioner, by following due procedure of law, before starting the work of her land and to pay her compensation for acquisition of the land. 6] Keeping in view the fact that it is a developmental activity, which is being carried out and that if the appellant succeeds, she would be entitled to compensation in accordance with law and the fact that the appellant has filed Writ 4 Petition, as pointed out above, I am of the opinion that no interference is required in this Appeal against Order. The same is therefore, dismissed. 7] In view of dismissal of Appeal, nothing survives in Civil Application No.7353/2009, the same is,therefore, dismissed. (R.K.DESHPANDE, J.) umg/ao66-09