1 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 206 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO. 206 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO. 206 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.450 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.450 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.450 OF 2007 Sou. Pushpa Gulab More & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. Shri Raghunath Mahadeo Sangale & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.V.Sadavarte for the Appellants. Mr.Balasaheb Deshmukh for the Respondents. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATE : JULY 16TH, 2008. DATE : JULY 16TH, 2008. DATE : JULY 16TH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . This Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and decree dated 9th February, 2007 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 504 of 2004. 2. The Appellants are the original Defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.1260 of 1988 filed by the Respondent No.1 Plaintiff for removal of encroachment on the public way admeasuring 13 meters running between 2 Hanuman Mandir and the house of one Sopan Dangat. In so far as the said village is concerned, the said village has been settled on the Gairan Land allotted by the Government. The City Survey Scheme was implemented in the said village in the year 1984. 3. The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence came to a conclusion that it was not proved by the Plaintiffs that the said road is a public road and therefore the relief sought by the Plaintiffs could not be granted. The Trial Court was on the view that if there was any encroachment, the Gram Panchayat was competent to take action against the said encroachment under the provisions of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. The said Regular Civil Suit No.1260 of 1988 was accordingly dismissed. 4. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said suit, the Plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Appeal No.504 of 2004. The learned District Judge on the basis of the city survey record which was produced by the City Survey Officer and on the basis of the Commissioners report filed in the said suit came to a conclusion that the structure of the Appellants herein was on the road concerned and therefore decreed the said suit and 3 perpetually restrained the Appellants from causing obstruction of Plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit way. 5. On perusal of the City Survey record as well as the Map annexed to the report of the Commissioner, the finding of the Lower Appellate Court that the Appellant herein has encroached upon the road, in my view, cannot be faulted with. The Lower Appellate Court has recorded the said finding of fact on the basis of the evidence that was before it. 6. In my view, the Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. Hence, the Second Appeal is, dismissed. 7. The Ad-interim protection granted to continue for a period of four weeks. 8. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application No.450 of 2007 does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. [R.M. SAVANT, J.] [R.M. SAVANT, J.] [R.M. SAVANT, J.] 4