1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.974 OF 2005 Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Shri Manikrao V. Patil, Age 42, ...Appellant. v. 1 Shri Ganesh Shankar Chougule & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Amit B. Borkar, adv. For the Appellant. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 20th August , 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is original defendant and the Grampanchayat of the village. Grampanchayat proposed to construct a road for the user of the villagers through the land belonging to the plaintiffs/respondents. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed suit for injunction. Gram Panchayat alleges that there was a public way through the land of the plaintiffs for the last forty years and it has been used by the people and, therefore, it has right to construct the road. The trial Court dismissed the claim of the Gram Panchayat and decreed the suit. Gram Panchayat preferred First Appeal No.453/99. Appeal was also dismissed. Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings that there was no public way through the lands of the plaintiffs. It is material to note that on 3rd February, 2009, the learned counsel for the appellant 2 had submitted that if the Gram Panchayat is ready and willing to purchase the said land from the respondents, the dispute can be resolved. The learned counsel for the appellant states that no such decision is taken so far. Infact, if the Gram Panchayat wants to acquire the land for the purpose of public road, that is totally within the powers of State, which can be exercised on the request of the Gram Panchayat. In the present appeal, we are not concerned with the rights of the Gram Panchayat to acquire the land for the public purpose. There is concurrent finding of the fact that no public road is in existence through the land of the plaintiff/respondent. I do not see any question of law involved in the present appeal. 2 Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)