lN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6867 of 2004. Raju Lal son of Shri Ramphool and Others VERSUS Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board, Jaipur & Others Date Of Order ::: 10/04/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mr. Mahesh Sharma, Counsel for the Petitioners. Mr. R.A. Katta, Counsel for the respondent no.1. Mr. J.P. Goyal and Mr. Amit Sharma, Counsel for the respondent no.5 None present for the other respondents By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff/petitioners instituted a suit for permanent injunction in the trial Court against the defendants, wherein he prayed that the defendants may be restrained from constructing the road over the land belonging to the plaintiffs. An application for temporary injunction was also filed, along with the suit. The trial Court vide its order dated 15.09.2000 allowed the application for temporary injunction and directed that both the parties shall maintain the status-quo in respect of disputed place during the pendency of the suit. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendant no.5 Gram Panchayat filed an appeal. The Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 03.09.2004 allowed the said appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court dated 15.09.2000 and dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Being aggrieved with the same, the plaintiffs have preferred the present writ petition before this Court. This Court vide its order dated 30.11.2004 while issuing notice to show cause to the respondents passed an ex-parte interim stay order that the status-quo, as exists today, shall be maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the suit as well as application for injunction, both, were filed with a prayer that the road may not be constructed over their land. The plaintiffs have no objection in constructing the road on land in seven-meters width, whereas the Counsel for the defendants contended that no road is being constructed in the land belonging to the plaintiffs, but it is being constructed only on the road meant for road only. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for both the parties agreed that they have no objection, in case the road is constructed on the land meant for road only, and no road should be constructed in the land belonging to the plaintiffs. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the road, in question will be constructed on the land meant for road only, and no road should be constructed in the land belonging to the plaintiffs, without acquiring it in accordance with law, during the pendency of the suit. The suit was filed in the year, 2000, therefore, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the suit and will try to dispose of the suit itself within a period of one-year. The cost is made easy. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/