JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the order dated 26.7.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 61/2013, whereby, the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the National Highway Authority of India was entrusted with the project of constructing a four lane road on the National Highway No. 8. During the course of the project, it is alleged that a building which was falling in the construction zone was to be pulled down. When the demolition of the building was attempted, the appellant filed a suit for injunction accompanied with an application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. with the prayer to restrain the defendant National Highway of India from demolishing the building which the appellant claims to be under his title and possession and was allegedly constructed decades ago. 3. The National Highway Authority of India contested the application for temporary injunction. It was pleaded on behalf of the Authority that Khasra Nos. 1776 and 1777 on which the building existed were as a matter of fact revenue land owned by the State Government and, thus, the appellant had no right to resist the use of the land for widening of the National Highway. 4. The learned Trial Court whilst deciding the temporary injunction application observed that the appellant failed to provide any proof or material to show that he was having any title over the property in question. The revenue entries which were submitted before the learned Trial Court clearly reflect that the building exists on the Government Land. 5. Accordingly, holding that the criterion's of prima facie case of balance of convenience and irreparable loss were not made out in favour of the appellant plaintiff, the application for temporary injunction was rejected by the learned Trial Court by a detailed reasoned order dated 26.7.2013. 6. The appellant has approached this Court by way of the instant appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 C.P.C. assailing the said order, whereby, his application for grant of temporary injunction was rejected. 7. 6. The appellant has approached this Court by way of the instant appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 C.P.C. assailing the said order, whereby, his application for grant of temporary injunction was rejected. 7. Learned Counsel Shri. Manish Shishodia appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently contended that the list of lands which were acquired for the construction of Four Land Highway does not include in it the lands of Khasra Nos. 1776 and 1777. He thus submits that the Highway Authority of India is neither entitled to construction a road on the said land nor did demolish the building which is in the exclusive possession and ownership of the appellant. He contends that the learned Trial Court was not at all justified in rejecting the prayer for temporary injunction by observing that the appellant failed to make out the components of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in his favour. He urged that the appellant provided prima facie material on the record of the Trial Court to show that he was in exclusive possession of the property in question. 8. It was also stated by Shri Shishodia that the appellant has also filed an application before the concerned Revenue Court for correction in the revenue entries which as per him were made in the name of the State Government inadvertently and erroneously and, thus, he submits that till the adjudication of the said application is done by the Revert Court, the respondent authority be restrained from demolishing the appellant's building because if the building is demolished at this stage, it would cause irreparable damage to the appellant. It was thus submitted that the appeal deserves to be accepted and the respondents be restrained from demolishing the property in question. 9. Per contra, Shri Vinit Sandhaya learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the National Highway Authority of India vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant. He urged that admittedly the land of the Khasra Nos. 1776 and 1777 belongs to the State Government. He submitted that the acquisition of the building which stands on these Khasras is being done by the National Highway Authority of India in the interest of the public at large because the action is aimed for widening and construction of a four lane road of the National Highway of great importance. 1776 and 1777 belongs to the State Government. He submitted that the acquisition of the building which stands on these Khasras is being done by the National Highway Authority of India in the interest of the public at large because the action is aimed for widening and construction of a four lane road of the National Highway of great importance. He further urged that the appellant is admittedly not having any title over the land in question and thus he was no right to challenge the acquisition and use of the land for road widening by the National Highway Authority and, therefore, the learned Trial Court was absolutely justified in rejecting the application for temporary injunction as the appellant failed to make out the mandatory requirements of the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and appreciation of irreparable injury so as to entitle him to a temporary injunction. He further submits that as the land in question is revenue land, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit. He thus prays that no interference is called for in the impugned order by this Court. 10. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the material available on the record. 11. Undispatedly, the revenue lands in relation whereto the application for temporary injunction was filed being Khasra Nos. 1776 and 1777 stand in the name of the State Government in the revenue records. Therefore, the objection if any regarding illegal acquisition and use thereof could have been raised by the State Government. The appellant is admittedly not having any title over the property in quest on and thus as long as the revenue entries regarding the ownership of the land stand in the name of the State Government, the appellant has no right to challenge any action of the National Highway Authority of India even if it is arbitrary. The respondent National Highway Authority of India apparently is acting in the larger public interest whilst acquiring and using the land in question for widening of the National Highway of utmost importance. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the appellant failed to make out the existence of necessary and relevant criterions which are pre-requisite for the grant of temporary injunction. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the appellant failed to make out the existence of necessary and relevant criterions which are pre-requisite for the grant of temporary injunction. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court rightly and justly appreciated the material available on record and rejected the application for temporary injunction filed by the appellant. The order passed by the learned Trial Court does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, perversity or jurisdictional error so as to call for any interference by this Court in appeal. 12. At this stage, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already approached the Revenue Court for correction in the revenue entries. He thus prays that as long as the proceedings in this regard are concluded, status quo should be maintained over the property in question. 13. This Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of a direction of maintaining status quo is made out. However, in case, the appellant succeeds in the application filed before the Revenue Court concerned for correction in the revenue entries and if the Revenue Court holds that the appellant is the owner/khatedar of the land in question, he shall be entitled to seek appropriate compensation from the respondents.Resultantly, the appeal as well as the stay application being bereft of any force are hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******