SHANTA BABUSO BHAGAT Vs. CANACONA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

(2.) THE above Appeal came to be admitted on 06.08.2008 on the following substantial question of law :

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent pointed out that though it is sought to be contended by Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, that the structure which was existing was in fact the structure which was protected by the Municipal Authorities whilst disposing of the Second Appeal there are no pleadings or any material adduced by the Appellants on that count. Learned Counsel has taken me through the pleadings as well as the issues framed before the Trial Court and pointed out that as there was no foundation on that count, no issue was framed by the Tribunal. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the whole suit filed by the Appellants was on the premise that the disputed structure is located in their own property when the suit filed by the Appellants to declare such ownership came to be dismissed. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the area where the disputed structure was located was within the road widening open area adjoining to the bus stand used for public service and, as such, the Appellants were entitled to proceed in terms of the direction of this Court. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Appellants have failed to establish that the disputed structure was not located in the open space and, as such, there was no reason for any interference in the impugned Judgment.