1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 134/2010. ( Dayaram Santoshrao Dhengre -: versus :- Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti and another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JANUARY 13, 2010. Heard Shri M.R. Johrapurkar, learned counsel for petitioner. Both the Courts have rejected temporary injunction application of petitioner / plaintiff. His suit is with prayer to restrain respondent no.1 APMC from raising any construction in front of eastern side of shop block which are erected by him on plot no.88 and not to disturb his ingress and outgress from Butibori Road to shop block. The very same prayer is also made in application at Exh.5. By placing reliance upon the judgments of this Court reported at 1996 [3] BCR 537 (Smt. Sarladevi Kundanlal .vrs. Shailesh Gourishankar Namdeo), and 1997 (Supp.) Bom.C.R. 932 (Govindbhai Ramjibhai Chauhan .vrs. Gokulchand Juthalal Agrawal and another), the learned counsel has contended that a person in possession cannot be dispossessed, except in accordance with law and to that 2 extent he is also entitled to claim injunction. The propositions cannot be disputed. 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 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. JUDGE Rgd.