1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 626 OF 2004 Mannalal Hiralal Agrawal ( Deceased through LR Smt. Suryakalabai Mannalal Agrawal .. APPELLANT VERSUS Aurangabad Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner .. RESPONDENT Shri A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 5 th August, 2009. PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiff raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Plaintiff instituted suit being Regular Civil Suit no. 2/1994 claiming declaratory relief in respect of development made by the Municipal Corporation on the property which allegedly belongs to the plaintiff. It is contended that the Municipal Corporation has erected street lights and constructed tar road on the portion which according to the plaintiff, belongs 2 to him. Development on the open space without following proper procedure, according to the plaintiff, is bad in law and affects the rights of the plaintiff. Plaintiff as such sought necessary declaration in that regard. He also contends that the property in his possession was a part of survey no. 105 and is given C.T.S. no. 2940. Contentions raised by the plaintiff have been controverted by the Municipal Corporation. It is denied by the Municipal Corporation that they have developed the property belonging to the plaintiff or have done any developmental activities in the area which is of plaintiff’s ownership. Trial court after recording evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not substantiated his case and as such dismissed the suit. Appeal preferred by the plaintiff being Regular Civil Appeal no. 71/1998 came to be heard and disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Aurangabad who was pleased to dismiss the same by judgment and decree dt. 30-8-2000. 3 I have perused the judgments recorded by both the courts below. Plaintiff has failed to prove his contention by leading cogent evidence to the effect that the defendants have infact conducted development activities over an area which is of his ownership and in his possession. it is observed by the courts below that the plaintiff has not lead any evidence to prove the 3 boundaries of C.T.S. no. 2940 nor has lead any evidence establish that the developmental activities carried out by the Municipal Corporation is in the area or is within the premises belonging to the plaintiff which is part of C.T.S. no. 2940. Plaintiff as such is held dis-entitled to claim relief. The view adopted by the courts below appears to be proper and based on appreciation of evidence placed on record by the parties. Arguments advanced are essentially matters relating to appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 4 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa626.04.odt