IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 515 OF 2008 The Sarpanch through Grampanchayat Aalas & Anr. ..... Appellants V/s Sadruddin Sahjahan Patil & Anr. ...... ...... Respondents. Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar, Adv. For the appellants. Mr.Rahul Kulkarni, Adv. For respondents 1 & 2. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. 16th DECEMBER, 2008. PC: Heard learned advocates for respective parties. The appellants are original defendants and respondents are plaintiffs. Suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the appellants-defendants from obstructing respondents-plaintiffs' peaceful possession of the suit land and from removing their wire fencing. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs thereafter preferred an appeal and the lower appellate court by a judgment and decree which is impugned in the present second appeal decreed the respondent-plaintiffs' suit. There is no dispute that the respondents- plaintiffs' house is not standing in gaothan area and same is constructed on an agricultural area. The case of the appellants- defendants is that the respondents-plaintiffs have constructed wire fencing surrounding the agricultural land without prior permission as contemplated under section 52 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the act”) and therefore they issued notice directing the respondents-plaintiffs to remove the said fencing. It was case of the respondents-plaintiffs that no permission to erect wire fencing is necessary from village panchayat and therefore notice is illegal and since the appellants-defendants intended to remove the wire fencing forcibly they were constrained to file a suit. 2. The questions which require consideration is whether the land on which respondents-plaintiffs have constructed the house comes within the jurisdiction of the Aalas panchayat or not and secondly whether the wire fencing can be said to be building within the meaning of section 52 of the Act. The lower appellate court considered the provisions of section 52 as well as the provisions of sub-section 1 and 24 of section 3 and recorded finding that the land in question does not fall within the limits of gram panchayat and therefore gram panchayat could not have issued notice under section 52 of the act. Lower appellate court also held that wire fencing cannot be said to be building within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the act. 3. Under section 52 of the Village Panchayat Act no person is entitled to erect or re-erect any building within the limits of the village without prior permission of the village panchayat. Section 3 (24) of the act defines village as village specified in the notification issued under clause (g) of Article 243 of the Constitution of India. It was the specific case of the respondent-plaintiffs that agricultural land 2 which was fenced does not fall within the jurisdiction of the village panchayat Aalas and it was specific case of the appellants-defendants that the said land falls within the jurisdiction of village panchayat Aalas. After perusal of the lower court's judgment I could not find the appellants-defendants having produced any material to substantiate their contention. The appellants-defendants could have substantiated their contention by producing the notification issued under clause (g) of Article 243 of the Constitution of India but they failed to do so. In that view of the matter I do not find any error in the finding of fact recorded by lower appellate court to the effect that respondents- plaintiffs' land does not fall within the limits of gram panchayat Aalas. The finding of fact is not liable to be interfered with in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law is involved. Hence second appeal stands dismissed. 16.12.08 (R.V. MORE, J.) 3