1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.1031 OF 2005 Shri Balchand Suka Surwade - APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Shri Deoram Asaram Surwade and Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.SB Bhapkar Advocate for Appellant; Mr.PR Katneshwarkar, Advocate for Resp.Nos.1,3 & 4. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 30th March, 2010. PER COURT : 1) Heard Mr.Bhapkar and Mr.PR Katneshwarkar for the respective parties. 2) Decree in RCS No.105/1999 recorded by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhusawal was challenged by the aggrieved defendants before the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No.71/2002 set aside the decree and consequently, the aggrieved plaintiff is in Second Appeal. 2 3) Mr.Bhapkar would argue, the substantial question of law in the matter is, the Gram Panchayat through it's Sarpanch, has accepted the plaintiff's possession on the area asserted or tried to be encroached upon by the defendants and, therefore, there should not have been any difficulty for the learned first Appellate court to accept this position not to disturb the decree. 4) These contentions, as coined, are basically contrary to the record. The Sarpanch had no authority to say anything about the Gram Panchayat property and to divest any right thereof, orally or otherwise, in favour of the plaintiff. Such demonstration by itself, shatters plaintiff's assertion. Then comes the observation of the learned first Appellate Court made in paragraph 28 and I find that the learned first Appellate Court was certainly justified in asking, either the plaintiff or the Gram Panchayat, to resort to the remedies in terms of Section 52 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act for removal of the obstruction or the construction made by the defendants on the Gram Panchayat property. 5) There is virtually no specific pleading that the plaintiff owns the property by any 3 source of legal recognition. Lack of pleading also smashed the plaintiff's assertion. Consequently, the Second Appeal does not indicate any formulation of a substantial question of law, it is dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/sa1031.05