SA.110-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL No. 110 OF 2010 Mr. Arun Shantaram Parkar ...Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. M. S. Karnik, for the Appellant. Mrs. S. V. Sonawane, GP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : FEBRUARY 10, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Appellant is the original plaintiff. He has filed the suit, challenging the notice issued by respondent No.2 for demolition of the suit stall. Suit, however, was dismissed. The trial Court, though initially granted stay to the demolition of the said stall, dismissed the said suit. The plaintiff thereafter filed an Appeal before the District Court. The District Court also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial Court. SA.110-10 - 2 - 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the suit stall was constructed for the purpose of telephone booth. It is submitted that the applicant is a handicapped person. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 did not have an authority to issue notice of demolition, since some portion of the suit stall is in 15 meters from the center point of National Highway No. 17, and therefore, the Tahsildar could not have issued notice under Section 20 of the Land Revenue Code. 3. It is submitted that the appellant is paying the assessment taxes to the concerned government authority. Both the Courts below have held that appellant is not owner of the said stall and the said stall is unauthorized, and the applications made by the applicant for regularization, before various authorities, were not accepted. It is then contended that the Appellate Court has passed an exparte order. It is, therefore, submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the Appellate Court, so that the appellant will get an opportunity to make his submissions before the District Court through his advocate. It is not possible to accept this submission. Both the Courts below have held that the suit stall has been constructed by the appellant. The Appellate Court has also recorded that the appellant had taken seven adjournments after SA.110-10 - 3 - paper-book was prepared and neither the appellant, nor his advocate was present though the matter was called out twice. In my view, no substantial question of law, is raised in the Second Appeal. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 4. It is always open for the appellant to approach the concerned authority and file an application for regularization of the stall. If such an application is filed by the applicant, the same be considered sympathetically by the concerned authority. [ V. M. KANADE J.]