( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 725 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10333 OF 2001 Lalchand Ramchandra Zavar .. Appellant Versus The Government of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents Shri V.S. Bedre, Advocate for the appellant. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 15.06.2009 P.C. :- 1. This appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff whose suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 64 of 1984 was dismissed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, by judgment and decree dated 30.06.1995, which judgment and decree is further confirmed in Civil Appeal No. 207 of 1995, by III Additional District Judge, Jalgaon, on 17.11.2000. It ( 2 ) is case of the plaintiff that he is owner of plot No. B-17, situated at M.I.D.C., Jalgaon. The plot was insufficient, so he requested respondent No.2 – M.I.D.C. to allow plot No. B-16, on 24.05.1977. Since, his request was not granted, suit was filed for possession and injunction. 2. The main question is whether there is vested right in the plaintiff/appellant to purchase plot No. B-16, merely because he is owner and allottee of plot No. B-17. No right of pre-emption is recognized by law. The learned advocate for the appellant Shri V.S. Bedre pointed out Section 39 (2) (b) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. It is as follows:- 39 (2) (b) :- “Persons who are residing or carrying on business or other activities on any such land shall, if they desire to obtain accommodation on land belonging to the Corporation and are willing to comply with any requirements of the Corporation as to its development and use, have an opportunity to obtain thereon accommodation suitable to their reasonable requirements on terms settled with due regard to the price at which any such land has been acquired from them.” ( 3 ) 3. Thus, said provision deals with the person who is residing or carrying on business or other activity on the plot in question. Admittedly, the plaintiff is not carrying out any business or residing in plot No. B-16. There is no right of pre-emption conferred on adjoining plot holder. In the circumstances, no substantial question of law arises. The appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. 4. In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, Civil Application No. 10333 of 2008 does not survive. The Civil Application also stands disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa725.08