Honble MAHESHWARI, J.—Prayer for temporary injunction against placing of Mobile Service Tower by the defendant-respondent No. 2 on the land in dispute having been concurrently rejected by the learned subordinate Courts, the plaintiff-petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 2. The learned subordinate Courts have rejected the prayer for temporary injunction particularly with the findings that in relation to the land in dispute a patta has been issued by the petitioner Gram Panchayat; and that the Sarpanch of the petitioner Gram Panchayat has extended no objection certificate for erection of such tower; and that providing of mobile connection facilities is to the public benefit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned subordinate Courts have viewed the case from an altogether wrong angle and contrary to the settled legal principles of not permitting alteration of the property in dispute during pendency of the suit; that no such patta as referred by the defendants has been issued by the petitioner Panchayat; that the land in question belongs to the petitioner Gram Panchyat and during pendency of the suit, its unauthorized use ought to be injected against else the public at large would suffer irreparable injury. The service provider company has appeared in caveat and during the course of submissions in this petition, undertakings have been filed on behalf of the Company to abide by the decision in the suit. 4. Having examined the material placed on record and having given thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, this Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error in the orders impugned so as to call for interference in this writ petition. 5. The Sarpanch of the petitioner Panchayat has extended no objection certificate for erection of the tower by the respondent company that has been taken note of the learned Court below and contents whereof are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: ^^izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd Jh xqyke eksgEen iq= Jh yrhQ[kku tkfr eqlyeku fuoklh yrhQ[kka dh cLrh ¼usxjM+k½ xzke iapk;r >kaQyhdyk iapk;r lfefr fko ftyk ckM+esj vius jgoklh; IykWV ij fjyk;Ul dEiuh dks eksckby VsfyQksu VkWoj yxokus gsrq fdjk, ij nsrk gS rks xzke iapk;r dks fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ ,rjkt ugha gS vkSj u gh gksxkA** 6. On being confronted with such unequivocal certificate it was suggested on behalf of the petitioner before the learned subordinate Courts that the certificate was not issued for the land in question and was issued in relation to the residential house of the defendant No. 1. The learned appellate Court has pointed out hollowness of such explanation with the observation that the residential house and plot of the defendant No. 1 have been shown in the Commissioner’s report on the same piece of land; and then, ‘residential house’ is not the expression used in the said certificate that refers to the ‘residential plot’. 7. Prima facie from the material placed on record, it appears that the land in question belongs to the defendant No.1 and for his entering into the contract with the Company concerned to let the place for erection of the tower, the Panchayat itself had been a consenting party. It is also pointed out that erection work has already commenced and some part of the tower in question has come up. In the overall circumstances of the case, there does not appear any justification to issue a temporary injunction in this matter at the instance of the petitioner so as to prevent completion and commissioning of the tower in question and to that extent, the impugned orders do not call for interference. 8. However, looking to the overall circumstances of the case, it does appear appropriate that the responsible officer of the Company concerned should submit an undertaking before the Trial Court to the effect that they would not claim any equity by erecting and commissioning the tower in question during the pendency of the suit. Undertakings have been submitted in this Court on behalf of the respondent-Company to abide by the final outcome of the litigation but the undertaking to be submitted to the Trial Court should specifically state that the respondent-Company shall not claim equity only on the ground of erection and commissioning the tower. Requisite undertaking be filed before the Trial Court within four weeks from today. 9. Needless to clarify that the observations as made herein are only regarding prima facie case and relevant only for disposal of the application for temporary injunction; and shall have no bearing on the decision of suit on merits. 10. Subject to the requirements and observations aforesaid, this writ petition stands rejected.