( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 156 OF 2009 Sudhir Gilyani Katgave, Age: 29 years, Occ: Agri. & Business, R/o. Ekurga, Tq. Omerga, District Osmanabad. .. Appellant. Versus Datta Manik Kunahale, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agri & Business, R/o. Ekurga, Tq. Omerga, District Osmanabad & Ors. .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2682 OF 2009 ... Mr. M.A. Kandharkar,Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A.N. Gadime, Advocate h/f Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. S.N. Boiwar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. ... CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 15.04.2010 P.C. :- Heard Mr. M.A. Kandharkar, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. A.N. Gadime, Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr. S.N. ( 2 ) Boiwar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 2. This second appeal is filed by appellant - original defendant No.1 who is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Omerga in R.C.S. No. 288/2002 decided on 29-07-2006 whereby decree of perpetual injunction is issued against the present appellant -defendant No.1 and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in respect of the suit plot, which judgment and decree is further confirmed in R.C.A. 19/2006 by the District Judge-1 Omerga on 29-11-2008. The appeal is admitted on the following question of law. "Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute regarding the allotment of plots to the earthquake affected persons in Latur District?' 3. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is admitted on the above said question of law and taken up for final hearing immediately. In this case, the plaintiff - respondent No.1 claims that the plot admeasuring 20 x 15 feet of Survey No.1, as described in plaint Para-2 was allotted to him and defendant No.1 has made encroachment and is ( 3 ) disturbing his possession. The defendants have filed their Written Statement at Exhibit-19 and stated that the plot was allotted to defendant No.1 and he also holds Kabala of the property. Thus, dispute is regarding the allotment of the plot. 4. Learned Advocate of the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.510 to 515, 517 to 519 and 516/2002 decided by the common judgment on 16-01-2002. The Supreme Court has observed therein that if any person is not satisfied with the action taken by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, he may make a representation to the Secretary and Special Commissioner in the Relief and Rehabilitation Department of the Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. The directions are specifically given in respect of rehabilitation of earthquake affected persons. So remedy of the parties who are aggrieved, is essentially to approach the Secretary and Special Commissioner in the Relief and Rehabilitation Department of the Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. ( 4 ) 5. In view of the above said ruling, the remedy of defendant No.1 regarding dispute about the allotment of the plot is to approach the Secretary and Special Commissioner in the Relief and Rehabilitation Department of the Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. Since the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have concurrently held that the plaintiff is in possession of the plot in question, the order of injunction shall continue until dispute between the parties is decided by the Secretary and Special Commissioner in the Relief and Rehabilitation Department of the Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 6. With this direction, second appeal is partly allowed and disposed of. 7. In view of the final disposal of the second appeal, Civil Application No.2682 of 2009 does not survive and hence is disposed of accordingly. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] sut/APR10/sa156.09