1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Second Appeal No.434 Of 2009 With Civil Application No.6307 of 2009 Mohammad Swaleh Abdul Gafoor And Another. ... Applicants. Versus Dhule Municipal Corporation, Through its Commissioner. ... Respondent. -------- Mrs. Sabahat Tarique Kazi, Advocate for appellants. Shri. S.P. Shah, Advocate for respondent. -------- CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J. DATE: 20th JANUARY 2010 PER COURT : 1) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2 2) This is a second appeal filed by the plaintiffs raising exception to the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. The plaintiffs have challenged a notice issued by the Municipal Corporation directing them to remove the construction raised unauthorizedly over Final Plot No.43, Survey No.391. The contention of the plaintiffs is that the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation is vague and it does not give details in respect of the area where the disputed construction is raised. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that under the garb of the notice the Municipal authorities are trying to dismantle the construction legally raised by the plaintiffs over final Plot No.43. 3) The respondent appeared and resisted the suit claim by filing Written Statement. According to the respondent, the plaintiffs 3 are raising construction on three acres portion which is earmarked for public amenities and specified as open space in the sanctioned lay out plan. 4) The plaintiffs can very well raise construction over the plots excluding the open space. From the evidence placed on record it transpires that the alleged construction is raised on the open space which is earmarked for public amenities. Although the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation does not give details in that regard, however, on perusal of the evidence placed on record by the parties it is clear that, the construction in question is raised on the open space. The plaintiffs are entitled to raise construction over the portion which is part of sanctioned lay-out plan after securing appropriate permission from the Municipal authorities. 4 They cannot be permitted to raise construction over the open spaces earmarked for public amenities. 5) On perusal of the orders passed by the Courts below I am convinced that there is no error in appreciating the evidence placed on record and the view adopted by the Courts below appears to be reasonable. No substantial question of law arises in the second appeal. 6) The Second Appeal No.434 of 2009 is dismissed summarily. 7) Civil Application No.6307 of 2009 does not survive, it stands dismissed. (R.M. BORDE, J.) rsl/ sa.434.09