JUDGMENT B.K. MISRA, J.-- Both these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment as they stem out of a common judgment rendered by the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal while disposing of F.A.O. Nos.20 and 21 of 2010. I may mention here that F.A.O. No.20 of 2010 was filed by the present Opposite Party No.1 who was Opposite Party No.1 in Interim Application No.94 of 2010. In F.A.O.No.21 of 2010 the present Petitioner was the Appellant. The learned District Judge, Dhenkanal by the impugned judgment at Annexure-1 after hearing the counsel for the respective parties dismissed both the appeals and set aside the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Dhenkanal in Interim Application No.94 of 2010 arising out of Civil Suit No. 324 of 2010. 2. The present Petitioner who was Respondent No.1 in F.A.O. No.20 and Appellant in F.A.O. No. 21 of 2010 being aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal while disposing of the said appeal has filed these two writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In the said impugned order the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal set aside the order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Dhenkanal in Interim Application No.94 of 2010 arising out of Civil Suit No.324 of 2010 wherein the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Dhenkanal had directed maintenance of status quo in respect of the suit land till Opposite Party No.1, namely, the present Opposite Party No.1 deposits compensation to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/-before the said Court to be paid to the Petitioner if he succeeds in the suit. 3. The present Petitioner instituted a suit in the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Dhenkanal as Plaintiff which was registered as C.S. No.324 of 2010 praying therein for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land i.e. Plot No.1062/9135 appertaining to Mutation Khata No.785/263 in mouza Kamalanga i.e. Ac.0.23 decimals of land out of Ac.0.62 decimals of land in East and West direction from the southern side as well as for injuncting the present Respondent from going over the suit land till the compensation is paid by the Land Acquisition Officer, Dhenkanal with a further direction to the Land Acquisition Officer (Opposite Party No.6) to pay compensation in respect of the acquired land to the Plaintiff. 4. 4. According to the case of the Petitioner he purchased the case land from Defendant No.2 on the strength of a registered sale deed on 22.2.1995 for a valid consideration and he was delivered possession of the said land on the date of purchase and since then remained in peaceful possession without any hindrance from any quarter. The Plaintiff got the land mutated in his name in Mutation Case No. 3578/2001. It is the further case of the Appellant-Plaintiff that out of the mother plot no.1062 the Defendant No.6 acquired Ac.0.36 decimals of land i.e. Ac.0.23 decimals from Mutation Plot No. 1062/9135 and Ac.0.13 decimals of land from Plot No. 1062. It is the specific case of the Appellant-Plaintiff that the land which he purchased from Defendant No.2, after mutation was renumbered as Mutation Khata No.758/263 corresponding to Plot No.1062/9135 measuring Ac.0.62 decimals which the Government acquired but the compensation money which the Petitioner/Plaintiff was entitled to get for such acquisition of suit land by the Government was never paid to him but paid to the Defendant Nos.1 to 5 on 12.6.2009. It is alleged that the Petitioner-Plaintiff though approached Defendant No.6, namely the Land Acquisition Officer, Dhenkanal and despite issuance of notice to the said Land Acquisition Officer by registered post with A.D. and when no action was taken the Appellant-Plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit and also filed a separate application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. for injunction. 5. The learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Dhenkanal disposed of the injunction petition which was registered as I.A.No.94 of 2010 by his order dated 28.9.2010 directing maintenance of status quo in respect of the suit land till Opposite Party No.1 deposit compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-within fifteen days from the date of order, failing which the order of status quo is to continue till disposal of the suit. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order the Respondent No.1, namely, Chief General Manager, GMR Energy, Kamalanga Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal vide F.A.O. No.20 of 2010 and that was disposed of by the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal on 28.9.2010 by the impugned order at Annexure-1 wherein the order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) in I.A. No.94 of 2010 was set aside. Similarly, the present Petitioner also filed F.A.O. No.21 of 2010 challenging the order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Dhenkanal in I.A. No.94 of 2010. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner while assailing the order at Annexure-1 contended that since the suit land was never acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer and when there has been no notification to that effect under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the status quo order was rightly passed that too till payment of compensation money i.e. Rs.1,25,000/-to the present Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in support of his contention placed reliance on a decision of this Court as reported in 2003(2) Orissa Law Review 287, Dhruba Charan Parida –v-State of Orissa and others. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.1 contended that the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is ridiculous as the Petitioner cannot blow hot and cold at the same breath in view of his specific plaint averments in Para 6, 7 and 8 of the plaint as well the averments in Para-6,7 and 8 of the petition for injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of C.P.C. i.e. in I.A.No.94 of 2010. It was also contended that when on one hand the Plaintiff-Petitioner admits acquisition of Ac.0.23 decimals of land out of Mutation Plot No.1062/9135 appertaining to Mutation Khata No.758/263 and when it is his grievance that instead of payment of compensation to him for such acquisition of land compensation was paid to the Defendant Nos.1 to 5 and he has prayed for payment of such compensation to him in the suit he is estopped from saying that the suit land was never acquired by the Government for setting up of the Power Plant at Kamalanga. It was also contended that if the Plaintiff-Petitioner’s land was never acquired then what was the justification for him to file the suit and claim compensation. It was also contended that if the Plaintiff-Petitioner’s land was never acquired then what was the justification for him to file the suit and claim compensation. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition which has been filed should be dismissed with exemplary costs and when the impugned order at Annexure-1 suffers no jurisdictional irregularity and when also nothing is there on record to show that such order was passed in flagrant disregard of law or Rules of Procedure and in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Surya Dev Ray –v- Ram Chander Rai, AIR 2003 S.C. 3044 this Court shall not interfere with the impugned order. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, I perused the materials on record including Annexures-1 and 2 so also Annexure-A/1, the photo copy of the plaint filed by the present Petitioner i.e., C.S.No.324 of 2010 and Annexure-B/ 1, the photo copy of the injunction petition. As per the plaint averments in Para-7 and also in the injunction petition in Para-7 the Appellant-Plaintiff has admitted that Ac.0.36 decimals of land out of mother Plot No.1062 i.e. Ac.0.23 decimals from Mutation Plot No.1062/9135 and Ac.0.13 decimals of land from Plot No. 1062 in East-West wise from the southern side were acquired for establishment of a power plant styled as G.M.R. Energy, Pvt. Ltd, Kamalang. In view of such specific pleadings of the Plaintiff-Petitioner prima facie the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner for injunction in this case appears untenable. The learned lower Appellate Court in the impugned order at Annexure-1 has considered all the materials on record and came to a finding that the Plaintiff-Petitioner has no prima facie case in support of his case for injunction. 10. It is needless to reiterate here that while considering the question of grant of injunction, the court is required to consider three basic requirements, namely:- I. Prima facie case; II. Balance of convenience and inconvenience; and III. Irreparable loss and injury. When the Appellant-Plaintiff himself admits that the suit land was acquired by the Government for establishment of a power project and compensation was alleged to have been paid to Defendant Nos.1 to 5 but not to him that shows that the Appellant-Plaintiff has no prima facie case for getting the equitable relief of injunction as prima-facie he is not in possession of the suit land. Similarly, when the Opposite Party No.1 has been given the land for setting up a power plant as per the Memorandum of Understanding entered into with IDCO and when the land in question has already been transferred to Opposite Party No.1 Company for setting up of a 1,050 Megawatt Power Plant and when as per the contention of the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 and as per the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.1 construction work has already been started over the suit land, if interim relief is not granted to the Petitioner-Plaintiff no irreparable loss would be caused to him and the balance of convenience does not lie in his favour. The Petitioner-Plaintiff on the eventuality of succeeding in the suit can be adequately compensated in terms of money. 11. Thus, when in the impugned order at Annexure-1 there is no error which is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceeding and when the Petitioner has failed to establish that grave injustice and there has been gross failure of justice by the impugned order at Annexure-1, this Court declines to interfere with the impugned order at Annexure-1 and accordingly the impugned order at Annexure-1 is affirmed and the Writ Petitions being devoid of merit stand dismissed. 12. However, taking into consideration the nature of dispute, it is necessary that the suit be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. The learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Dhenkanal shall do well to dispose of the suit within six months hence by taking all possible steps. The parties are directed to cooperate with the Court and see that the lis comes to an end within the stipulated time. The lower Court shall refuse unnecessary adjournments while taking up hearing of the matter. With the aforesaid observation, both the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. Writ Petitions disposed of.