1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. WRIT PETITION NO. 176 OF 2008 Raghu Dannappa Hegde ..Petitioner Vs. 1. The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and ors. ..Respondents Mrs. S.A. Dhamale for petitioner. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & S.J.VAZIFDAR, JJ. June 30, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Mrs. Dhamale the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends that in Writ Petition No. 118 of 1994, the petitioner therein is likely to succeed in obtaining the allotment of a plot and the petitioner claims that he would have some share laong with the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 118 of 1994 in such a benefit. Mrs. Dhamale stated that the petitioner has already been impleaded as an additional respondent in Writ Petition No. 118 of 1994 and, therefore, we do not find any reason to entertain a separate petition praying for the relief of injunction. So far as the relief prayed for in prayer clasue (c) is concerned, the petitioner may approach the competent Civil Court and pray for a declaration regarding his share in the subject plot of land. 2 Hence, the petition is rejected. This order will not come in the way of the petitioner in approaching the Civil Court or his rights and contentions in Writ Petition No. 118 of 1994. (S.J.VAZIFDAR,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)