1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.456 of 2009 The Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Agar, Tq. And Distt.Akola .vs. Shriram Dnyandeo Sangale =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.S.T.Dhurve Adv.for the appellant. Mr.S.A.Radke Adv. for the respondent. C ORAM : C.L.Pangarkar, J. DATED : 23rd April, 2010. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the original defendant/Grampanchayat of village Agar. Grampanchayat of village Agar had issued a notice on 9/10/2004 to the respondent/plaintiff for removal of an encroachment said to have been made on a public road. It was the contention of the plaintiff that it was not an encroachment and therefore, he was not liable to remove. The said suit was opposed by the Grampanchayat and it was contended that it had a right to remove the encroachment. 2. The learned trial court found that the notice issued by the Grampanchayat was proper and therefore, he 2 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff went in appeal. The appellate court found that the notice issued by the Grampanchayat itself was improper, in as much as, no action was taken within a stipulated time. Holding so, he allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by that, this second appeal has been preferred. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits before me that due to the fact that there was a dispute between the two brothers, Grampanchayat did not take any action and therefore it could not be said that the suit was barred or the notice was illegal. He also brings to my notice that in that suit there was an order of injunction and therefore, the Grampanchayat was justified in not taking action immediately. There is no doubt that the suit was pending between the two brothers but in that suit Grampanchayat was not party. In any case, therefore, there was no injunction against the Grampanchayat for removal of the encroachment. It could take the action. The judgment of the appellate court shows that the Grampanchayat had noticed the encroachment for the first time on 6/2/2002. The learned counsel for the respondents says that it was, therefore, incumbent on the part of the Grampanchayat to have taken action within six months as is held by this court in a decision reported in 1989 Mh.L.J.535 (Tukaram Lingappa Nigthane ..vs.. Grampanchayat Karyalaya, Sawargaon). After referring to Section 53 of 3 the Village Panchayat Act and the Rules for removal of obstruction and encroachment, particularly Rule 3, this court held that an action is required to be taken within period of six months by the Grampanchayat and if it fails to do so, it is for the Collector to take necessary action in the matter. He submits that the Grampanchayat looses its right to remove the encroachment if action is not taken within six months. 4. After having gone through the said judgment, I find that the learned Judge of the first appellate court has rightly appreciated the law as laid down by this court and has rightly held that the notice was invalid because it was not given within period of six months There is no other substantial question of law involved. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed in limine. The appellant is always at liberty to take action as per provisions of Section 53 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. JUDGE. chute 4