* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 722 OF 2008 W I T H CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1864 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 722 OF 2008 Ibrahim Kedar Shah .....Appellant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .....Respondents ======== Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar, Advocate for Appellant. Mr.S.N.Gawade, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr.Sachindra Shetye, adv.for respondent no.3. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 11thJune 2009 PC :- 1. This Second Appeal is filed to challenge correctness and legality of the judgment and order dated 18th September, 2008 passed by the District Court, Sindhudurg. By the impugned judgment and order, the District Court confirmed the order dated 31st January, 2007 by Civil Judge Senior Division, Sindhudurg dismissing Regular Civil Suit No. 23 of 2007. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff. He filed the suit * 2 * herein to challenge notice under Section 52 of the Grampanchayat Act issued by the respondents alleging that the structure in occupation of the appellant being Gram Panchayat House No.2070 is an unauthorised construction and calling upon the appellant to demolish the same. As per the plaint, the appellant was issued similar notice by the respondent dated 30th August, 1993. Then the appellant had filed Regular Civil Suit No.75 of 1993 to challenge the same. Alongwith the respondents, the neighbours of the appellant, Bangalekar Brothers were also made party defendants to that suit. By an interim order passed therein, the parties were directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the appellant structure. Subsequently, the appellant withdrew the suit in the year 2001. The reason for withdrawal of the suit as stated in para-4 of the plaint in the suit herein is that the respondents did not file their written statement and the appellant felt that the suit structure would not be demolished. However, there was a counter claim filed by Bangalekar Brothers to the suit which continued for some time and subsequently that was also dismissed. After dismissal of the suit, the respondents served fresh notice dated 14th May, 2003 which notice is under challenge in the present proceedings. In reply to the notice, the appellant has contended that the premises in dispute have been in existence since the year 1992 and he had made an application on 25th August, 1993 for * 3 * carrying out repairs to the suit structure. He had infact carried out the repairs to the suit structure. With these pleadings, the appellant sought a declaration that the notice dated 21st January, 2002 is illegal, bad in law and for an injunction to restrain the respondents from demolishing the structure. 3. The trial court after considering the evidence before it, dismissed the suit holding that the appellant had failed to establish that his structure is an authorised structure. It held that though the appellant has come with a specific case that construction of the suit building was made in the year 1982 by his predecessor-in-title, no documentary evidence was produced in support thereof. As against this, respondent no.3 alleges that the suit structure was constructed in the year 1993. The trial court took note of the fact that the building in dispute was not in the record of the Gram Panchayat during the period 1982 to 1993. The same was recorded for the first time in the year 1993 for the purpose of assessment and payment of taxes. Therefore, the trial court disbelieved the claim of the appellant that the suit structure was constructed in the year 1982. 4. Mr.Arjunwadkar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the pendency of the earlier suit, there was a resolution passed by the Standing Committee that no action should be taken against the suit structure. It is contended on the part of the * 4 * respondents, that this resolution was an illegal resolution and in contravention of Section 52 of the Gram Panchayat Act. Thereafter, the Chief Officer of the Zilla Parishad had suspended the entire body of the village panchayat. The members of village panchayat then preferred an appeal before the competent authority which set aside the order of suspension and directed the body to reconsider the case of the appellant and to take further action in accordance with the resolution of the Standing Committee. Relying on this decision of the Standing Committee, it is contended by Mr.Arjunwadkar that the respondents are stopped from taking action of demolition against the suit structure. 5. The direction given by the competent authority to the respondents was to reconsider the case of the appellant and after such reconsideration take further action against the structure, There was no specific direction that the resolution passed by the Standing Committee be implemented. The very fact that the respondents have subsequently issued notice dated 30th January, 2002 under Section 52 would indicate that the case of the appellant was reconsidered and the respondents were of the opinion that the structure being an unauthorised structure cannot be protected. The argument raised on the resolution of the Standing Committee cannot be stretched beyond this point. As has been held by both the courts below, the appellant has been unable to produce any evidence * 5 * to show that the suit structure was constructed with due permission from the respondents. In that circumstance, there cannot be any protection of the suit structure. I have perused both the judgments and the appeal proceedings. There is no substantial question of law arising in the present appeal for its admission. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed in limine. 6. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the Civil Application does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. 7. On the application of Mr.Arjunwadkar, the interim orders are continued for a period of eight weeks from today. (Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota,J.)