1 SA 595/2007 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 595 OF 2007 Bhanji Ladhabhai Shah, since deceased through his heirs and legal representatives Ashwin Bhanji Shah & ors. .. Appellants V/s Kalyan Dombivali Corporation & Ors. .. Respondents Ms. Manjiri Parasnis for the appellants. Mr. Prashant Kamble i/b Mr. A.S. Rao for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 P.C. : 1. The respondent no.1 – Municipal Corporation issued a notice to the owners and occupiers of a structure constructed on the property bearing CTS Nos. 7854 to 7856 for its demolition on the ground that the structure was unauthorised. Notice also stated that the structure was coming in the street line as shown in the development plan. The appellant, who is an occupier of the structure belonging to respondent no.2 – owner and landlord, filed a suit for injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from demolishing the structure. The 2 SA 595/2007 trial Court decreed the suit holding that the Municipal Corporation had not proved that the structure was coming in the street line as shown in the development plan. On appeal, however, the appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the appellant. Hence, this second appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellate Court has not reversed the finding of the trial Court that the structure was not in the street line as shown in the development plan and as such the appellate Court ought not to have set aside the decree. A structure can be demolished by the Corporation not only if it is within the street line but even if it is unauthorised and constructed on a private property without obtaining a prior permission of the Corporation which is a planning authority. The notice on the Corporation for demolition of the structure was issued on two counts, viz. (i) that the structure falls within the street line, and (ii) that the structure was unauthorised. Even if it is assumed that the structure did not fall within the street line, still other ground for its demolition, viz. that it was unauthorised, was not rebutted by the appellant by adducing appropriate evidence. The finding recorded by the appellate Court that the structure was constructed without prior sanction of the planning 3 SA 595/2007 authority is a possible finding of fact and cannot be interfered with in a second appeal. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arise in this second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)