IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 283 OF 2007 W I T H CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 584 OF 2007 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 283 OF 2007 Shri.Dilip Gangadhar Gholap .....Appellant vs. The Nashik Municipal Corporation, Nashik .....Respondent ======= Mr.Shriram S.Kulkarni,advocate for Appellant. Mr.R.S.Apte,advocate for respondent. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 15thJune 2009 P.C. :- 1. This Second Appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff to challenge correctness and legality of the order dated 27th February, 2007 passed by the court of Ad-Hoc District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No.2 of 1994. The appeal is opposed by the respondent-Corporation. It may be mentioned at the outset that there are concurrent findings of facts as regards the dispute. 2. The appellant filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.562 of 1992 for a permanent injunction simplicitor that the wooden shed from which he carries on the business of selling mutton be not removed by the respondent-Corporation. In the plaint, the appellant refers to the notice dated 23rd April, 1992 issued by the respondent-Corporation calling upon the appellant to remove his structure alleging that the same has been placed upon the municipal land. However, there is no challenge to the notice in the plaint. The appellant had sent reply to the notice alongwith five other occupants of the adjoining structures. The reply per-se admits that the structures stand on the municipal land. It is now the claim of the appellant in his plaint as well as in the present appeal that his structure stands not on the municipal land but on a private land which at one point of time belonged to one Vithal Khutwad. The appellant has claimed that he was the tenant of Vithal Khutwad. The appellant has not produced any rent receipt claiming that Vithal Khutwad had not issued any rent receipts to him. In his deposition, the appellant states that Vithal Khutwad had later sold away his land to another person. The appellant however does not specify the name of the new owner and the relationship qua the new owner. 3. Mr.Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the respondents claims that the suit structure is on municipal land, it was necessary for the respondent to produce the necessary evidence in support. He relies upon the municipal assessment register which shows the appellant as the occupant of the structure to submit that the structure is authorised and situate on private property. Assessment for municipal taxes merely indicates existence of the structure. It does not indicate that the structure is an authorised structure or it has been regularised by the municipal corporation. The next set of documents relied upon by Mr.Kulkarni is of the licenses issued by the Corporation for carrying on the business of selling mutton from the suit structure. Even if any license is issued for carrying on business, the same does not mean that the structure in respect of which the licenses are issued is an authorised structure. 4. Mr.Apte, the learned counsel for the respondent has rightly drawn my attention to the reply filed by the appellant which according to him really seals the fate of the appellant. In the reply to the impugned notice, the appellant has in terms admitted that his structure is standing on the municipal land. It is to be remembered here that the notice has not been challenged by the appellant. He has also not made any attempt to explain the reply to the notice nor sent any rejoinder to the Corporation stating that the admission therein should be held against him. Perusal of the record shows that there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration of the court in the instant case. There are concurrent findings of facts as regards the authorisation of the structure against the appellant. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine. 5. With the dismissal of the appeal, the Civil Application No. 584 of 2007 does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. (Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota,J.)