1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 170 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 134 of 2010 (D) Dayaram Santoshrao Dhengre, Aged about 52 years, Occu. Private, R/o Butibori, Tah. & Dist. Nagpur. ........APPELLANT. ...VERSUS... 1] Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti, Nagpur. through its Chairman/Administrator, Kalamna, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Market Yard, Kalamna, Tah. and Dist. Nagpur. 2] Sanjay S/o Pandurang Wagh Aged about 47 years, Occu. Business, R/o Mukte’s Wada, Behind Gayatri Plaza, Near Masjid, Mahal, Nagpur. .......RESPONDENTS =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- Mr. M.R.Joharapurkar, Advocate for the Appellant None for the respondents. C ORAM : D.B.BHOSALE ; and PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 28th July, 2010. 1] Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2] By this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has impugned the order dated 13/1/2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 134 of 2010, whereby the appellant’s writ petition has been dismissed. 2 3] The writ petition was directed against the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below on the application Exh.5, seeking injunction against the respondents from raising any construction in front of the eastern side of the shop block, which was erected by him on plot no.88 and not to disturb his ingress and outgress from Butibori road to his shop block. 4] We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, has made the following observations. “However, here the property was already acquired from respondent no.2 Sanjay Wagh. His challenge to acquisition failed right upto Hon’ble Apex Court. In terms of Land Acquisition Act property vested in State Government. The petitioner has purchased the property after publication of Section 4 notification and before publication of Section 6 notification. The State Government has thereafter made over the land to respondent no.1 APMC for its use. APMC is thus constructing some wall in portion thus conveyed to it by the State Government. Effort of petitioner/plaintiff is to thus frustrate the said acquisition again, and such effort after the original owner failed therein cannot be encouraged. The prayers in the suit also show that there is no express prayer to protect the alleged possession of the structure erected on plot no.88 by the petitioner/plaintiff. Suit is valued at Rs.2000/- and court fee of Rs.300/- has been paid. In the circumstances, I do not find any jurisdictional error 3 in the approach of the courts below. No case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is thus dismissed, with no order as to cost.” 5] The appellant has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that under the garb of construction of compound wall, the respondents are virtually evicting the appellant from the suit property, without following the due process of law. We are unable to accept the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, he has no right to seek such order of injunction restraining the owners from constructing wall for protecting their land. It is clear from the observations made by the learned Single Judge that the land was acquired for the respondents and they were put in possession thereof long back. The original owner of the land Sanjay Wagh lost in the proceedings whereby he had challenged the acquisition, right up to Supreme Court and thereafter, the appellant has initiated the second round of litigation by filing instant proceedings. 6] In the circumstances, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale