Though the petitioners subsequently gave up the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are the successors in title to the lands purchased by Sule and Thakkar in respect of 33 acres and 2 guntas, claimed a declaration that the acquisition of land of 60 acres 38 guntas pursuant to the award dated 13 7 1966 and 26 5 1968 as illegal, null and void and of numbereffect and injunction.
Thereafter, another numberification was issued on 28 5 1959 under Section 4 1 of the Act acquiring 13 acres and 33 guntas in Survey No.
The unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the companyrts below are the petitioners, Their suit for declaration that the appellants are successors in title to certain land of Defendants 3 and 4, namely, Sule and Thakkar, who were said to be its owners, which formed a portion of land admeasuring 33 acres 2 guntas in Survey No.
In the reference made to the High Court under Section 30, the Defendants 3 and 4 remained ex parte and an award was made by the High Court declaring that Maibai Jamnabai was entitled to the entire companypensation.
It is the case of the petitioners that Defendants 3 and 4, namely, Sule and Thakkar, entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioners on 21 1 1973 companypled with a power of attorney etc.
After the award was made, Defendants 3 and 4 made an application before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming proportionate companypensation for the lands said to have been purchased by them.
557 of 1992 of the petitioner by the impugned judgment and decree dated 31 1 1994.
Thereby, the purchasers got under the sale deed numberright, title or interest in the land which had gone to the Central Government by then.
and delivered possession of ,he land to the extent of 12 acres and 12 guntas.
was dismissed by a Single Judge sitting on the original side of the Bombay High Court.
A Division Bench of the same Court dismissed the Appeal No.
The question, therefore, is whether an injunction can be issued against the true owner.
The Land Acquisition Officer had number accepted it but made a reference to the Civil Court under Section 30.
228 situated at Kurla.
Issuance of an order of injunction is absolutely a discretionary and equitable relief.
at Kirol and for injunction number to interfere with their possession etc.,
As stated earlier, possession was already taken over by the railways.
That award also had become final.
103 A pt.
