1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 724 /2009 (Arun M. Daore & others VERSUS State of Mah. & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 15, 2009. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the orders passed by the trial as well as the appellate Court holding that the petitioners were not entitled to grant of temporary injunction. Both the Courts concurrently held that the petitioners had not made out a prima-facie case and the balance of convenience was also not in favour of the petitioner. The Courts found that it was not the case of the plaintiff that under the garb of removing the encroachment from Gat No.708, the defendants were trying to remove the shops of the plaintiff, which were away from the Gram Panchayat. The Courts found that the Tahsildar had already issued necessary orders under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and some of the encroachers had filed Writ Petition No.3652/2006 before this 2 Court which was dismissed by an order dated 05.09.2006. In fact, it was observed by this Court in the order dated 05.09.2006 that the Collector should take appropriate steps according to law to get the stay granted in favour of some of the encroachers vacated immediately and proceed against the encroachers according to law as they had no legal right to remain on the land, which belongs to the Government, without any justification. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the notice for removal of encroachment was in contravention of the provisions of Section 53(2)(A) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act and, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to the grant of injunction, is liable to be rejected as the entire action is taken by the respondents in pursuance of the action taken against the petitioners under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the Commissioner ought to have been appointed in this case to consider the extent and nature of the encroachment is also liable to be rejected as it is well settled that while considering an application for grant of temporary injunction, it would not be fit and proper to appoint a Commissioner. Even otherwise, in this case, there was no question of making an order for 3 appointment of the Commissioner as the plaintiffs had failed to prove a prima-facie case and also failed to prove that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiffs. There is no error whatsoever in the impugned orders passed by both the Courts, much less a jurisdictional error, so as to interfere with the findings in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE