1 Wp no.1533/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1533 of 2010 Sahebrao Ananta Kadam ... Petitioner versus Shri Bapusaheb Ananta Kadam(deceased) thru his Lrs and ors. ... Respondents ... Mr.K.B.Sonwalkar for the petitioner. Mr.Surel Shah for the respondent nos.1A to 7 CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 14th July 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, petitioner challenges the interlocutory order i.e. rejecting the petitioner’s application for injunction. 3. According to the petitioner, the joint family is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.47 (different Hissas) of village Khalve, taluka Malshires. According to him, there was an oral partition between the petitioner and respondent nos.1 and 2, who are his brothers, in the year 1986 and the suit land was allotted to him in the partition. An 2 Wp no.1533/10 application for recording the partition was also made in the year 1986. Despite the partition, respondent nos.1 and 2 were trying to disturb his possession and therefore he filed the suit for injunction. In the suit, he applied for interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. The injunction was granted by the trial court but on appeal, the order was reversed and the injunction was vacated. Aggrieved petitioner has challenged that order in this court. 4. In my view, the appellate court has held that the petitioner was not in possession of the suit land on the date of the suit. This being a possible finding of fact requires no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Even apart from that, there is one more difficulty in the way of the petitioner. Admittedly, the proceeding for acquisition of the suit land was for resettlement for Project Affect Persons (Ujni dam) were initiated prior to the year 1968 and the award has also been passed. After the acquisition, the suit land has been allotted to respondent nos.6 and 7 from whom the respondent nos.1 and 2 claim to have purchased it. According to the petitioner, though an award for acquiring the suit land has been passed and the suit land, they continued to remain in possession. The Resettlement Act, under which the land was acquired, prohibits any transfer or partition of property after the commencement of the acquisition proceedings. Even according to the petitioner, the partition which was effected in 1980 was after the commencement of the acquisition proceedings and even after the award. As the partition is prohibited under the Resettlement Act, the contention of the petitioner that the suit land was allotted to them exclusively in the partition cannot be accepted. Petitioner therefore cannot claim to in exclusive possession of the land under a 3 Wp no.1533/10 partition. They therefore were not entitled to an injunction. This is an additional reason for which the petitioner is not entitled to an injunction. There is no merit in the petition which is hereby rejected. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)