1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 272 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 724 OF 2009 (Arun Madhukar Daware & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.) 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 & F.M. REIS, JJ. SEPTEMBER 07, 2009. Heard Shri Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Kaptan, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Shri Mandpe, learned AGP for respondent No. 1. The challenge is to the concurrent orders passed by the trial Court refusing to grant temporary injunction to the appellants/ original plaintiffs, the appellate order passed in MCA maintaining it and order of the learned Single Judge. Shri Purohit, learned counsel stats that the unauthorized construction or encroachment is sought to be removed by the Gram Panchayat though it does not possess such powers after six months and he further states that the construction of the appellants is not on Survey No. 755 or 608 on which the Gram Panchayat states that the encroachment has been done. Shri Kaptan, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned AGP for respondent No.1 contend 2 that the Gram Panchayat passed resolution and approached the Collector and thereafter Tahsildar has passed orders under Section 50 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and Gram Panchayat is only executing those orders dated 12.5.2008 by issuing notice. He states that the appellants have not approached the trial Court with clean hands and as such, no interference is warranted in all these concurrent orders. After hearing the respective counsel, we find that the appellants/ plaintiffs did not file any plaint map on record to show the location of their shops and relative placement on Survey No. 755 or 608. They also did not file on record sale deeds in relation to those plots and from one sale deed shown to us, it is apparent that the purchaser there has purchased only structure and not plot of land. There is no sanctioned map filed by any of the appellants. In these circumstances, we find nothing wrong in appreciation of controversy by the Courts below. No case is being made out warranting any interference. However, as it is contended that the appellants are having their business at the places in dispute since last several years and those business are only source of their livelihood, we expedite further proceedings in Civil Suit No. 717 of 2008 and direct the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, to decide the suit as early as possible and in any case by 30th June 2010. 3 With these directions, Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.