1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 116 OF 2009 1. GOPAL S/O JAWAHARLALJI PRAJAPATI RO THOKBARDA ACHALPUR, AMRAVATI .. PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1. THE SECTY, GRAMPANCHAYAT AND ANR ACHALPURA, AMRAVATI 2. THE SARPANCH, GRAMPANCHAYAT, THOKBARDA, ACHALPUR, AMRAVATI .. RESPONDENT/S Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri J. B. Kasat Adv for appellant. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 17 th DECEMBER, 2009. Heard counsel for the appellant. This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the District Judge whereby he rejected the application for temporary injunction. 2 Plaintiff/appellant had instituted a suit for injunction restraining the respondents from interferring with his possession over the suit property on the ground that he is in cultivating possession of the said land. It is his case that he was given a lease for the year 1993-94 by the Government and since then he is in continuous possession of the same. The Grampanchayat is illegally seeking to dispossess him. With these allegations he filed the suit. The said suit was contested by the Grampanchayat. Grampanchayat contended that the land is under its supervision and plaintiff is in illegal possession of the suit land. It is their contention that the suit was liable to be dismissed. Learned Judge of the trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties found that plaintiff was not entitled to any injunction and therefore dismissed the suit. Appeal has been preferred and temporary injunction application has been filed. Land belongs to the Government is not in dispute and Government is not party to the appeal. For this simple reason I think that the suit could not have been entertained. Secondly there is no semblence of right in the appellant/plaintiff to be in possession of the suit property after the lease came to an end. Although the 3 lease was said to be granted for preparation of bricks, the plaintiff claiming to be in cultivating possession of the land. Land is not being used for the purpose for which the lease was granted. Grampanchayat certainly has a right to protect the government property and it could dispossess the plaintiff. The appellant has no right to be in possession of the land. He is not entitled to any injunction. There is no substance in the appeal. The same is dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk 4 5 6