1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 610 OF 2008 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 453 OF 2008 Smt. Ashrafbi Nijama Kazi ........Appellant versus State of Maharashtra & anr........ Respondents. Mr. P.D. Dalvi for the Appellant Ms. S.P. Manchekar G.P. for the respondents. 1 and 2. CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 20th OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Dalvi learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. The appellant is the original plaintiff. Suit was filed for mandatory injunction directing the respondent to allot the suit land to the plaintiff and in the alternative direction to respondents to dispose of the appellant/plaintiff's application in accordance with law and for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from interfering and obstructing her possession in the suit property. The trial court decreed the suit. The respondent then preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court which came to be allowed by the impugned judgment and order which is being challenged in the present Second Appeal. 2. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the suit land 2 was given on lease for a period of five years to her husband and after expiry of this period of five years, she preferred an application for fresh allotment. However, respondent did not consider her application. Therefore she was constrained to file suit as stated above. 3. The lower appellate court, in view of the fact that the period of lease was already over, held that the respondent government has every right to recover unauthorised possession of the suit land from the husband of the appellant/plaintiff and after his death from the appellant. The lower appellate court has further held that the appellant/original plaintiff cannot as a matter of right claim allotment of the suit land in her favour. It was also held that injunction cannot be claimed against the respondent as alternative efficacious remedy is available to the appellant under Land Revenue Code. The finding recorded by the lower appellate court cannot be faulted with. I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the courts below. There is no question of law much less substantial question of law involved. Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, the civil application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (R.V. More, J.)