(1) SA. 1032.2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 1032 OF 2004 Atmaram S/o Rangu Choudhari died through LRs. and others .. Appellants VERSUS Khalikujjama S/o Badiuddin Kazi and others .. Respondents WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 1033 OF 2004 Gangaram S/o Kadu Dhangar .. Appellant VERSUS Khalikujjama S/o Badiuddin Kazi and others .. Respondents AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7523 OF 2004 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 1032 OF 2004 Atmaram S/o Rangu Choudhari died through LRs. and others .. Applicants VERSUS Khalikujjama S/o Badiuddin Kazi and anr. .. Respondents AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7524 OF 2004 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 1033 OF 2004 Gangaram S/o Kadu Dhangar .. Applicant VERSUS Khalikujjama S/o Badiuddin Kazi and others .. Respondents (2) SA. 1032.2004 Mr. S.S. Patil, Advocate for the appellants in both the Second Appeals Mr. Mohd. Naseer, Advocate for the respondent no.1 in both the Second Appeals None present for the Respondent no.2 though served in S.A. 1032.2004 Mr. H.M. Salve, Advocate for the Respondent nos.2 and 3 in S.A. 1033.2004 ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] This appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The respondent- plaintiff filed a suit to injunct the appellant- defendant from demolishing certain tombs situated on and around his property which is a piece of land admeasuring about 5 Acres. The Courts below identified the tombs and since one tomb is situated well within the land of the appellant-defendant and others are situated on the boundary of the land, it seems the appellant and others who have now plots of lands within the suit land, are facing difficulty in the development of their respective plots. Of- course such development is not the subject matter of the present litigation. (3) SA. 1032.2004 2] The Courts below giving the cogent reasons injuncted the appellant-defendant from demolishing the tombs. The Courts below did not otherwise obstructed the appellants and other plot owners' right to use and develop their respective plots. I think this order neither causes prejudice to the appellant-defendant nor it gave unjustified leverage to the respondent no.1-the decree holder. I am told that the respondent-decree holder has after passing of the decree, certain grievance that despite of the decree some of the tombs were sought to be demolished etc. I am told that the respondent has started execution of the decree against the alleged miscreants and again such proceedings is not the subject matter of the present Appeal. 3] Mr. Patil learned Advocate appearing for the appellants made a grievance that due to the judgment and decree passed in these two suits his client and other purchasers of the plots of land have been facing problems from the gram-panchayat authority. I am told that the gram-panchayat is refusing permission to develop the plots. Of-course this is not relevant consideration for admitting the Second Appeals. There is practically no substantial question of law arising from these Second Appeals. Both the Second Appeals stand dismissed. (4) SA. 1032.2004 . Needless to add is that the appellants have ample opportunity to challenge the gram-panchayat's action independently. Consequently, Civil Application no. 7523 of 2004 and 7524 of 2004, both seeking stay also stand dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp