1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8922 OF 2009 Abdul Raheman Fakir Saheb Patel ...Petitioner vs. Abdul Gafur Amirmiya Sayyed & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Mahendra Agvekar i/b Mr.Mandar Limaye for the petitioner None for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 5, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the original plaintiff has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 10 th August 2009 passed by the learned District Judge by which the Appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2 The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The petitioner claimed a declaration that he is entitled to 58.33% share in the plots which may be allotted under 12.5% scheme in respect of the property described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. A prayer for perpetual injunction was made enjoining the 2 nd to 4 th respondents to hand over possession of the 58.33% share in the plots to the petitioner. A prayer for injunction was made restraining the 1 st respondent from taking possession of the plots to be allotted by the 2 nd to 4 th respondents under the 12.5% scheme. Similarly, temporary injunction is claimed against the 2 nd to 4 th respondents restraining them from handing over possession of the plots to the 1 st respondent. 3 According to the case of the petitioner, the land 2 described in paragraph 1 of the plaint was owned by his father. The said land was notified for acquisition by notification dated 3 rd February 1970 issued under the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). In the plaint itself it is admitted that the father of the petitioner made an alienation of the said land by a registered sale deed dated 19 th March 1980 in favour of the 1 st respondent. As a result of the said alienation, while passing the Award under section 11 of the said Act of 1894, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award in favour of the 1 st respondent and on the basis of the said Award plots under 12.5% scheme are sought to be allotted to the 1 st respondent. 4 An application for temporary injunction made by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court. By the impugned order the Appeal against the said order has been dismissed. 5 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even assuming that there is a valid sale deed executed by the father of the petitioner, the sale deed was executed after notification under section 4 of the said Act of 1894 was issued and therefore the sale deed is not valid and binding on the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that a prima facie case has been made out to grant interim relief. 6 I have considered the submissions. Firstly, it must be stated that there is no challenge to the sale deed in the suit. There is no provision of law under which the owner of the property is prohibited from transferring the property after a notification under section 4 of the said Act of 1894 is issued. Only restraint is that the said sale deed will not be considered for determination of the 3 compensation payable on account of acquisition. There is no declaration claimed as regards the said sale deed and the suit is only for injunction. As there is no challenge in the suit to the sale deed executed in favour of the 1 st respondent, the Courts below were justified in declining to grant equitable and discretionary relief of temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner. No case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE