1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION No.7554/2009. (Mr.Goroba Gade and Ors. Vs. Ramchandra Sonkamble and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .Mr.GG Suryawanshi, Adv. for petitioners; Mr.VP Jadhav, Adv. for Resp.Nos.1 & 2; Mr.VG Shelke, AGP for Resp.Nos. 3 and 4; *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 11th October, 2010. ... 1) Heard. 2) Clamp of injunction below Exhibit-5 in Regular Civil Suit No.15/2008 by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga was challenged by the defendant/writ petitioners before the learned District Judge,Nilanga by Misc.Civil Appeal No. 3/2009. 3) The learned District Judge, on re- appreciation of the facts did not agree to the contentions of the writ petitioners/defendants and confirmed the order of grant of Exhibit-5 thereby rejecting the MCA No.3/2009. Both the orders are questioned by the defendants in the writ. 4) The contentions of the writ petitioners 2 is, that the disputed property belongs to Mahar community and the defendants have right to cultivate the same. The defendants are in enjoyment thereof, as according to the learned Counsel, there is spot panchanama drawn by the revenue authorities. 5) The learned Judge, on evaluating the prima facie evidence by way of documents found that the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 are brothers inter se with their other four brothers. The disputed property belonged to them for specific purpose and by virtue of mutation entry No.733, it was transferred. Deceased Krishna has deposited an amount of Rs.318/- with the Government and ownership was granted to Krishna in respect of land Survey No. 11 to the extent of 6 hectares and 75 R. There appears persistent mutation entries in favour of the plaintiffs or their predecessor in title. 6) It is pertinent, the defendants (writ petitioners) are adjacent land holders. In past they did not object to such cultivation enjoyed by the plaintiffs. The long drawn revenue record considered by the learned Judge from 1993-1994 till 2007-2008 need not be obliterated. The finding of the learned Judge does not require any interference. The exercise of discretion in terms of order XXXIX 3 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, was legitimately done. 7) Writ Petition lacks merit, dismissed. No costs. 8) The observations are prima facie in nature. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/