: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.222 OF 2009 Abdul Kadir Momhadyasin Sayyad ... Appellant V/s. The Collector, Sangli & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Pratap Patil for Appellant Ms.V.S. Mhaispurkar, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1,2 & 3 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 09.09.2009 P.C.: 1. The appeal has been filed against the Regular Civil Appeal No.139 of 2006. According to the appellant, his structure which was situated on CTS No.15 which is part of gat No.1843 was demolished. It is contended that since CTS No.15 was a part of 1843, the respondents could not have demolished the suit structure without following the due procedure in law. It appears that the plaintiff i.e. the appellant herein had purchased land on 16.6.1984 on which according to him the suit structure had already been built. The appellant filed a suit against the respondents praying for an injunction restraining the respondents from disturbing his possession over the suit property and for an injunction from demolishing the farmhouse and cutting of trees in the suit property. The appellant also prayed that if the suit property was to be acquired for a public purpose, compensation should be paid to him in accordance with law. : 2 : 2. The trial Court decreed the suit by concluding that gat No.1843 and CTS No. 15 are one and the same property and therefore the respondents had no right to demolish the structure standing on that property. 3. The appellate Court has reversed these findings. The appellate Court has held that the plaintiff had not proved that the City Survey No.15 was a part and parcel of gat No.1843 and therefore, he was not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the suit. On assessment of the evidence, the appellate Court has found that the plaintiff has admitted that land bearing City Survey No.15 is gaothan land whereas land bearing gat No.1843 was an agricultural land and that the plaintiff had not obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat for constructing his house. 4. The appellate Court has found that the property i.e. the house of the plaintiff was situated on City Survey No.15 and since he had no permission from the Gram Panchayat, it was held that there was an encroachment on the part of the plaintiff not only of the gaothan land but also of the agricultural land. In these circumstances, the appeal has been allowed. 5. In my view, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and therefore is dismissed. 6. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, nothing remains in the Civil Application No.848 of 2009 and the same is also dismissed.