1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2008 Shri Narayan Damodar Pake ... Appellant (Org.Plaintiff) Vs. Group Gram Panchayat Rajpuri ... Respondent (Org. Defendant) Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil,Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Pratap Patil,Advocate, for the respondent CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 29th September, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant. 2. According to the plaintiff/appellant, he is the owner and in possession of the suit property bearing House No.118 situated within the limits of Rajpuri Gram Panchayat. He had purchased the property under an unregistered sale deed from one Tukaram. At the time of purchase, there was only a foundation or plinth and the plaintiff completed the construction of pucca house in the year 1992-93 after obtaining necessary permission. Even the property tax was recovered from him for the years 1992-93 and 1993-94. From the next year, the Gram Panchayat did not collect the tax. On 14.1.2000, the defendant 2 Grampanchayat issued notice to remove the unauthorised construction within 30 days. Therefore, he filed the suit for declaration and injunction. The suit was contested contending that the plaintiff did not have title on the land on which he was making construction. He had never completed construction. The construction was still going on when the notice was issued to him to stop construction and to remove the same. It was contended that no permission was obtained for the purpose of construction. Further, it was contended that the suit was not tenable due to non-compliance of Section 180(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. 3. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had no title on the land on which he was making the construction and the suit was barred for non- compliance of sec. 180(2) of the Act which required the previous notice before filing suit. In the result, the suit came to be dismissed. The plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal no.16 of 2006. The appeal also came to be dismissed. The appellate court also held that the plaintiff had no title over the land. The appellate Court found that for want of notice under Sec. 180(2), the suit was not bad. However, the appellate court found that the plaintiff had purchased only a plinth and thereafter in 1991 having obtained permission for raising structure on that, he had not commenced construction within one year and he had also not 3 obtained fresh permission as required by section 52(2) of the Act and therefore, the construction which was being made by him was not valid. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant and after perusal of the judgments rendered by the Courts below as well as the relevant provisions of section 52(2) of the Act, it appears that the land on which the plaintiff started construction is a Gaothan land. Neither he had purchased the land nor that the land was allotted to him or to his predecessor. His predecessor had only made construction of the plinth on the said piece of land and it was purchased by the plaintiff under an unregistered document. In 1991, the plaintiff had obtained permission for making construction of super structure on the said plinth but he had not commenced construction. Even though the plaintiff claimed that he had completed the construction of a pucca House in 1992-93, the record reveals that in the year 2000, the Gram Panchayat had issued a notice to him to stop the ongoing construction and to remove the same as it was unauthorised. The plaintiff produced photographs before the trial Court about the nature of construction and those photographs also reveal that construction was still going on. This does not support the contention of the plaintiff that the construction was completed in 1992-93. Section 52 requires that when the permission for construction has been granted or is deemed to have been 4 granted, the commencement of the work shall be made within one year and no person shall commence such work after expiry of one year from the date on which he became entitled to pursue the construction unless he again becomes so entitled by fresh compliance with the provisions of Section 52(1) or (2). There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff had obtained fresh permission after lapse of earlier permission. The tax receipts produced by him revealed that the tax was collected only for the plinth and not for the house standing on the same. 5. Taking into consideration these circumstances, which are minutely noted by the first appellate court, there is nothing on record to show that findings of the first appellate Court are perverse or against the record. No question of law is involved in the present Appeal. 6. Therefore, the Appeal stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)