R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.––Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant at length, as well as the learned Advocate General. Admit. By consent, heard forthwith.

2. The impugned Order is sought to be challenged on three grounds. Firstly, that the learned Single Judge overlooked the survey plan, copy of which was placed on the record of the Writ Petition No. 557/2004 at page 50 which revealed existence of a structure therein and further that the plan annexed to the Sale Deed dated 8.7.1992 also reflected the existence of the structure in the property sold under the said Deed. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant that the said plan appended to the Sale Deed was prepared on 28.6.1983 as is indicated from the plan itself. Besides, the undisputed photographs of the structure were clicked in the year 1987. The license issued by the panchayat on 20.10.1992 was also overlooked by the learned Single Judge by approving the finding arrived at by the respondents, about the absence of structure in the property prior to 1991. The second ground of challenge is that the learned Single Judge misconstrued the submission as regards Clause II(ii)(a) of Order dated 26.11.