The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a substantial question of law to be involved in a second appeal, as well as the limitations of the High Court's jurisdiction in re-analyzing evidence or interfering with concurrent findings of fact.

ORDER :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge and Special Judge (Electricity, Bhavnagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 2007, the appellants have preferred the present second appeal.

2. The short facts of appeal are that the appellants herein – original plaintiffs are having residential houses at Village: Dadva and residing since more than last 30 years, situated at Survey No.20 and 29/1 and the respondents are original defendants. The respondent no.1 is the higher supervisory authority over the respondents no.2 and 3 as per the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”). The respondent no.1 is responsible to prevent the decision and action taken by them against the provisions of the Act and to restrain respondents no.2 and 3 from taking illegal action undertaken by them. The respondent no.3 issued illegal notices to remove encroachment to the appellants. The appellants challenged the notices and action of issuance of such notices by way of Regular Civil Suit No.191 of 2004 for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain them from implementing such notice which came to be dismissed. Against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the appellants preferred the regular civil appeal before the District Court, which came to be rejected by the lower Appellate Court.

3. Heard Mr.Y. V. Vaghela, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.H. S. Munshaw, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Panchayat.

4. Mr.Vaghela, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are residing at Village: Dadva for more than last 30 years at survey no.20 and 29 and they are legal occupiers of the said lands which were converted into non-agricultural purpose by the competent authority. He has submitted that the internal road within non-agricultural land is of the private ownership and hence, the notice issued by the Gram Panchayat is not tenable in the eyes of law and the Panchayat has no any right, power or authority to issue such notice. He has submitted that the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent – Panchayat was nothing but an abuse of process of law and with an ulterior motive and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any encroachment made by the appellants. He has submitted that the notice issued under Section 94(1) was not tenable at law in view of the amendment of the Act. He has submitted that the present appeal deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, Mr.H. S. Munshaw, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Panchayat has submitted that both the Courts below have not committed any error by passing the impugned orders and, therefore, the present appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed.

6. Having considered the materials placed on record and the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, it appears that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below. While exercising the power under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, this Court has very limited scope.

7. It is worthwhile to refer to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Kirpa Ram (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Surendra Deo Gaur and others, reported in AIR 2021 SC 57, in the case of Kashmir Singh Vs. Harnam Singh reported in (2008) 12 SCC 786 and in the case of Illoth Valappil Ambunhi Vs. Kunhambu Karanavan reported in (2020) 18 SCC 317.

8. In the case of Kirpa Ram (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held and observed in paragraphs no.21, 22 and 23.

[21] In view of the above, we find that the High Court did not commit any illegality in not framing any substantial question of law while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants.

[22] The argument of Mr. Mehta is that substantial question of law i