1 S.A.No.484/10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.484 OF 2010. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 09.12.2010. 1. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction against the Respondent restraining them from demolishing the said structure and also for declaration. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the suit. The plaintiff is in Second Appeal. 2. Mr.D.K.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit property was in Gram Panchayat area and even no objection from Gram Panchayat was obtained for erecting the 2 S.A.No.484/10 said construction. The Respondent had illegally issued the notice. They did not have any authority to issue the notice as the suit property is in Gram Panchayat area. Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel further submitted that the Respondent filed the documents at a subsequent stage i.e. after recording of the evidence and the appellant did not get any opportunity to rebut the said documents. Even principles of natural justice were violated. In that light of the matter, he submits that the impugned judgment is illegal. Mr.Kulkarni, further submits that the structure in question is a temporary structure and if the Second Appeal is not been considered favourably in favour of the appellant then in alternate the appellant is ready to give an undertaking that if the Cidco requires, the appellant would remove the same. 3. Mr.Bajaj, learned counsel submits that the documents which were produced on record were the notifications showing the area within the limits of Respondent. Admittedly, no construction permission is given by the 3 S.A.No.484/10 Respondent. Even otherwise, the documents on record substantiates the fact that the said property is in green belt, wherein no construction is possible. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments. It is a fact that the said documents were produced after the evidence was recorded but the documents which were sought to be produced were the notifications showing that the property is in Cidco area and that the same is in green belt. The said notifications can not be disputed. In such circumstances, it can not be said that any prejudice has been caused to the appellant. Once, it is found that the said area is under Cidco then the permission of the Respondent was material. Admittedly, no permission of Cidco has been obtained by the appellant. Moreover, as the said property is in green belt, no construction can be made over the said property. Both the Courts have considered this aspect of the matter. No error has been committed by the Courts below. 5. In light of the above, the Second Appeal 4 S.A.No.484/10 being sans substantial question of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.09.12.2010. asp/office/sa484.10