Judgment ( 1. ) THE writ petition has been preferred as against grant of interim injunction during the pendency of suit. The plaintiffs/respondents have filed the suit for declaration and for issuance of permanent injunction submitting that they have the right to pass through survey numbers 162/2, 166/2, 167/2, 169/2m 170/2 and 173/3 to go to their land through land comprising survey numbers 162/1, 166/ 1,166/3, 170/3, 169/3, 170/1, 169/1, 167/3, 173/4. ( 2. ) THE plaintiffs have submitted that they have been using the way for the last 25 years prior to acquisition of land for the purpose of Bharat Oman Refinery limited, Mumbai. They have specified the way in the plaint map. They have no other alternative way to reach to their land. The defendant was trying to raise the construction of boundary wall after digging the foundation. ( 3. ) THE defendants in the reply filed before the Trial Court contended that plaintiffs are having alternative way to reach to their land. Land has been acquired and they have got the right to protect it and to raise construction. Compensation has been paid by them. They are in possession of the land. It is necessary to raise construction of boundary wall. There was no easement much less easement of necessity acquired by the plaintiffs. The plan has been prepared in the year 1998 for the purpose of ingress and egress of the villagers to reach to their fields. Gates have been constructed at various places wherever there is a recognized way. It has also been mentioned in the reply that where the way is available to plaintiffs to reach their field, they are making the place available to reach to the land as per plan. ( 4. ) THE Trial Court declined to grant injunction and observed that plaintiff can reach to their fields as per proposed plan prepared earlier for ingress and egress. The Appellate Court has granted the injunction setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court has observed that plaintiffs have the right to reach to their land otherwise they would suffer irreparably in case their right of way is totally stopped. Aggrieved by the order of Appellate Court the writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. ( 5. The Appellate Court has observed that plaintiffs have the right to reach to their land otherwise they would suffer irreparably in case their right of way is totally stopped. Aggrieved by the order of Appellate Court the writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. ( 5. ) SHRI Sheel Nagu, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has submitted that refusal to grant injunction by the Trial Court was proper. The Appellate Court has assumed that the way is not available to the plaintiffs. There is clear stand taken in the reply that right of way is available to the plaintiffs and wherever there is no way available, defendant/petitioner is providing the way by setting it out at reasonable place. The plaintiffs cannot compell the defendant after acquisition of the land to pass through the way specified in the plaint map. It is open to the defendant to set out a reasonable way for ingress and egress of the villagers to reach to their field, thus grant of injunction by the Appellate Court was wholly unwarranted. ( 6. ) SHRI Ravish Agrawal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing with Shri Pranay Verma for respondent has submitted that in fact there is no other way available. No other way exist except the one shown in the plaint map. He has relied upon provision of section 13 (c) read with illustration (b) of The Indian Easement Act, 1882 to contend that even after acquisition of the land, plaintiffs are entitled to use the way in question. ( 7. ) IT is not in dispute that the land which is in possession of the defendant/petitioner has been acquired and they have paid compensation for the land which has been acquired by them. There is a clear stand taken by the defendant/petitioner in the reply that wherever there is no way available to the agriculturist to reach to their field, they have provided the way as per plan, they have not stopped ingress and egress. In view of the stand of the defendant after acquisition of the land it is open to the defendant petitioner to permit the ingress and egress as per their convenience from the way as may be specified by them as per plan. Plaintiffs cannot compel defendant petitioner that they would use the road specified by them in the plaint map. In view of the stand of the defendant after acquisition of the land it is open to the defendant petitioner to permit the ingress and egress as per their convenience from the way as may be specified by them as per plan. Plaintiffs cannot compel defendant petitioner that they would use the road specified by them in the plaint map. The Trial Court while passing the order of refusal to grant the injunction has considered the public interest and also the fact that the Oil refinery is being constructed after spending crores of rupees. The Trial Court has also observed that wherever there is no way available it is incumbent upon the defendant as per proposed plan to provide gates, that was sufficient safeguard so as to protect interest of the plaintiff, thus we have no hesitation in setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Court of grant of blanket injunction. The order passed by the Trial Court is restored, which in our Opinion is sufficient safeguard to take care of the interest of plaintiffs to reach their field. . . ( 8. ) SHRI Ravish Agrawal, learned Sr. counsel has relied upon section 13 (c) of indian Easement Act, 1882 which provides that if an easement in the subject of the transfer or bequest is necessary for enjoying other immovable property of the transferor or testator, the transferor or the legal representative of the testator shall be entitled to such easement. Illustration (b) provides that A, the owner of two fields, sells one to B, and retains the other. The field retained was, at the date of the sale, used for agricultural purposes only, and is inaccessible except by passing over the field sold to B. A is entitled to a right of way, for agricultural purposes only, over Bs field to the field retained. The easement of necessity is not easement of convenience. It is clear that there is no deprivation to the plaintiffs to use their land by the way which has been specified in the plan by defendants/petitioner. In order to claim right of passage under section 13 (a) claimant must prove absence of alternative way as laid down in Anantram v. Kashiya Laxia kunbi - 1942 Nag LJ 441. It is clear that there is no deprivation to the plaintiffs to use their land by the way which has been specified in the plan by defendants/petitioner. In order to claim right of passage under section 13 (a) claimant must prove absence of alternative way as laid down in Anantram v. Kashiya Laxia kunbi - 1942 Nag LJ 441. In Mathu Injodikkaran Anthony v. Varied and others- AIR 1989 NOC 53 (Ker) it was held mere inconvenience is sufficient to reject claim of easement of necessity. In Ahmad Ali Fakruddin Bohra v. Dhondba dasrath Kalar - AIR 1937 Nag 179 when another way was available it was held there was no easement in the old way. Similar view was taken in Bank of India ltd. Madras v. Messrs. Sarathy Brothers and another - AIR 1970 Mad 37 . ( 9. ) IN our opinion as defendants have themselves prepared the plan for ingress and egress of agriculturists and Trial Court has also observed that way shall used as per prepared plan, in our opinion after acquisition of land defendants cannot be compelled by the plaintiffs to provide the way which they have pointed out in the plaint. Reasonable way can always be set out in such circumstances. The balance of convenience cannot also be said to be in favour of plaintiff as Oil Refinery is being constructed at huge costs. The larger public interest requires that it should not be hindered. ( 10. ) WRIT petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court is set aside. The order of Trial Court is restored. No costs. Petition allowed.