ORDER : 1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order and decree dated 15.10.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.45 of 2019 by the learned Principal District Judge, Kheda at Nadiad confirming the judgment and order and decree dated 01.10.2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nadiad in Special Civil Suit No.2 of 2016, whereby, the appeal preferred by the appellant came to be dismissed and judgment and order and decree dismissing the suit of the appellant came to be confirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in their original status as plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff is co-owner and in possession of land admeasuring 3334 Sq. Mtr., of Khata No.131 of Block Survey No. 223, at Post: Bilodara, Tal: Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as, "Subject Land" for the sake of brevity). The plaintiff had given Power of Attorney to Chandrkantbhai Bhaichandra Sharma for administration of subject land on which shops were constructed for which construction permission from Bilodara Gram Panchayat, was taken on 07-10-2014 and Raja(Chitthi), was given on 28-10-2014 as well as appropriate Resolution No.49/1, was also passed in the general meeting of Bilodara Gram Panchayat. Therefore, it is the say of the plaintiff that the construction is legal and authorized. 2.2 It is further say of the plaintiff that after the construction was over, respondent No.1 has issued letter dated 28-12-2015 by which it is stated that the said construction is illegal and the plaintiff has been directed to demolish the said shops within seven days. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. N.K.Majmudar for the appellant. 4. Learned advocate Mr. N.K.Majmudar for the appellant has submitted that both the Courts below have committed gross error in law by not considering the material evidence available on record by way of Village Form No.7 & 12 and 8-A of village Bilodra as well as resolution passed by the Bilodra Gram Panchayat. He has further submitted that Resolution No.49/1 produced at Exh.35 by Bilodra Gram Panchayat is not properly interpreted by the Courts below. He has further submitted that Resolution No.49/1 produced at Exh.35 by Bilodra Gram Panchayat is not properly interpreted by the Courts below. He has further submitted that the documentary evidence in nature of assessment done by the concerned authority of the said two shops which is subject matter of the suit, is also produced by way of documentary evidence at Exhs.36 to 40 and this aspect is also not properly considered by the Courts below while deciding the proceeding. He has further submitted that the Courts below have erred in straight way applying the order passed by the Mamlatdar in Tenancy Case No.07 of 2007 as the scope, ambit and parameters of the said order were altogether different and on that ground, the suit ought not to have been dismissed under the guise of widening of the road. 4.1 He has further submitted that the Courts below have committed substantial error of law in observing that the construction was carried out upon the Government land without applying the principles of proof as defendant has failed to discharge that burden and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Courts below, though concurrent findings of facts are against the present appellant, it requires interference as the Courts below have committed gross error and therefore, he referred to the suggested substantial questions of law, which are reproduced as under: “1) Whether the both the Courts below have committed substantial error of law in interpreting the documentary evidence produced at Exh.34 and 35? 2) Whether the both the Courts below have committed substantial error of law in holding that further permissions of the appropriate authorities was required to be obtained if at all the same had been provided under any provisions and the same was not obtained by the Appellant for construction of the suit shops and, therefore, construction was treated as illegal one, despite Gram Panchayat had already passed the resolution produced on record below Exh.34 granting permission for construction of the suit shops ? 3) Whether both the Courts below have committed substantial error of law in holding that the construction of suit shops was not legal one though necessary permission was granted, Raja-chithi was already granted and Resolution was already passed for carrying-out construction and the construction was carried-out in consonance with the Resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat authorities ? 3) Whether both the Courts below have committed substantial error of law in holding that the construction of suit shops was not legal one though necessary permission was granted, Raja-chithi was already granted and Resolution was already passed for carrying-out construction and the construction was carried-out in consonance with the Resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat authorities ? 4) Whether both the Courts below have committed substantial error of law in dismissing the suit merely on the basis of notices dated 12/10/2015 produced at Exh.53 and Notices dated 26/10/2015 produced at Exh.54 that too without following any procedure of law, without there being any adjudication, whether both the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the construction of the Suit shops was not legal and valid? 5) Whether both the Courts below have committed substantial error of law in deciding the title and nature of construction of the suit shops on the basis of notices issued by the concerned authorities? 6) Whether the authorities who had issued notices below Exh.53 and 54 had right or authority to issue such notices beyond the resolution and Raja Chithi and construction permission granted in favour of the appellant and construction of shops ? 7) Whether the authorities had any jurisdiction or powers to issue notices once the construction was carried-out in consonance with the construction permission granted by the concerned authorities and on the basis of the Resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat authorities upon the land of the appellant himself? 8) Whether both the Courts below have committed substantial error of law in not considering the authorities and powers of the concerned defendant for issuing notices upon the appellant for removal of construction and suit shops ? 9) Whether both the Courts below have committed substantial error of law in interpreting the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act and Bombay Land Revenue Code as well as the powers of the authorities as well as both the courts below have committed substantial error of law in not considering the provisions of the aforesaid Act under which the construction permission was granted and suit shops were constructed and notices of the authorities were beyond the provisions of the aforesaid Act which was not at all considered by the Courts below?” 5. I have heard the submissions made at the bar by learned advocate Mr. I have heard the submissions made at the bar by learned advocate Mr. N.K.Majmudar in detail and also perused the judgments of both the Courts below. Essentially, it transpires that the dispute revolves around the construction put up on the land in question of the two shops by the original – plaintiff who is appellant in the present appeal. It also transpires that the Special Civil Suit No.2 of 2016 which is dismissed vide the judgment dated 01.10.2018 of the trial Court and which is confirmed by the lower Appellate Court i.e. District Court Kheda at Nadiad in Regular Civil Appeal No.45 of 2019 vide judgment and order dated 15.10.2019. It seems that thereafter the present appeal is filed before this Court on 06.12.2019 and this appeal came to be listed for admission for about five to six times, but, at the request of learned advocate for the appellant, the matter is not proceeded. Today, the matter is taken up for the admission hearing after five years of filing. As the Court has insisted for hearing, learned advocate for the appellant has made his submissions. It clearly transpires from the judgments of both the Courts below that concurrent findings are given on the facts of the case. The trial Court has framed the detailed issues below Exh.21 after perusing the pleadings which is the plaint as well as the written statement at Exh.40, which is filed by the Government and whereby, the Court has found that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case that the notice issued by the defendant No.1 dated 28.12.2015 is illegal and with some mala-fide intention. 5.1 It is also held by the Courts below that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the construction put up by the plaintiff is after taking valid and legal permission from the competent authority. Plaintiff has also failed to prove that the construction is put up by the plaintiff on the land which is owned and possessed by him. 5.1 It is also held by the Courts below that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the construction put up by the plaintiff is after taking valid and legal permission from the competent authority. Plaintiff has also failed to prove that the construction is put up by the plaintiff on the land which is owned and possessed by him. The Court has also found that the notice which is issued by the defendant on 28.12.2015 is legal and valid and after appreciating the evidence, more particularly, the oral evidence of plaintiff at Exh.28 and oral evidence of witness of defendants at Exh.51 and the other documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff which is exhibited at Exhs.31 to 45 and the documentary evidence produced by the defendant exhibited from Exhs.53 to 57. The Court below has also considered the written submissions made at the bar and has come to the definite conclusion that from the oral deposition also, the plaintiff has admitted that he has not obtained any permission from the competent authority of the State Government and he has only obtained permission from the Bilodra Gram Panchayat in his agricultural land for construction. It also transpires that there is road in front of his shops and there is Nadiad- Kapadvanj Highway is going on and after considering the documentary as well as oral evidence of the parties, the Court has come to the conclusion that there is encroachment done by the plaintiff on the Government land by putting up construction, as the construction is from the middle of the road to the extent of 8.6 to 12 mtrs., which clearly indicates that there is encroachment on the Government land. The trial Court has, therefore, given the finding accordingly and dismissed the suit as no prayer can be granted. 5.2 The appeal is preferred before the Lower Appellate Court and it has also considered everything in detail by re- appreciating the evidence after framing the points for determination, which are about eight points and giving cogent and convincing findings. The trial Court has, therefore, given the finding accordingly and dismissed the suit as no prayer can be granted. 5.2 The appeal is preferred before the Lower Appellate Court and it has also considered everything in detail by re- appreciating the evidence after framing the points for determination, which are about eight points and giving cogent and convincing findings. The Lower Appellate Court has specifically found that the appellant has failed to show that he has taken any permission from the competent authority before putting up the construction of these shops adjacent to the Nadiad-Kapadvanj Highway and the respondent No.1 being competent authority, who is required to look after proper maintenance of the road, has rightly issued notice dated 28.12.2015 and the same cannot be held to be without any legal authority or jurisdiction. Therefore, the Lower Appellate Court has also found that the appellant has not pointed out anything before the lower Appellate Court to establish that the authority has exercised the powers beyond authority and jurisdiction. The Court has rightly considered the Ribbon Development Rules and found that the notice which is issued regarding breach of mid-line of control and Ribbon Development Rules, is just, proper and legal. Therefore, Lower Appellate Court has also considered other issues in detail in its judgment on factual aspects as well as legal aspects after appreciating the entire material available on record and re-appreciating the evidence. Therefore, I found that in view of the concurrent findings of facts and as there is no infirmity or illegality committed by the Courts below as the plaintiff-appellant has failed to show that the impugned notice issued by the authority is without jurisdiction or legal authority. 6. It also transpires that on the contrary the plaintiff has put up the construction on the Government land and therefore, the authority is bound to issue notice for the breach of mid-line of control and the Ribbon Development Rules which is part of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code. Merely, construction permission obtained from the Gram Panchayat, who has no authority to issue such permission as the property is situated within the execution jurisdiction of the defendant No.1 – State Government. Therefore, the permission, which is issued by the Gram Panchayat, for whatever reasons, cannot be considered. Merely, construction permission obtained from the Gram Panchayat, who has no authority to issue such permission as the property is situated within the execution jurisdiction of the defendant No.1 – State Government. Therefore, the permission, which is issued by the Gram Panchayat, for whatever reasons, cannot be considered. Moreover, in other legal proceeding, the Mamlatdar has also passed some order against the present appellant which also requires consideration and the conduct of the appellant is also required to be considered as the appellant has put up the construction in illegal manner and when, the authority is initiating any action by following due procedure of law, he is trying to stall such procedure by following such frivolous litigation and therefore, such encroachers are required to be evicted from the Government Land, as expeditiously as possible, and therefore, such litigation is not required to be encouraged and otherwise also, the findings given by the Courts below are just, proper and in accordance with law as well as in-consonance with the material available on the record and there is no infirmity, illegality or perversity found in any of the findings given by the Courts below. Therefore, no substantial questions of law have arisen for the consideration of this Court, and accordingly, the present appeal is required to be dismissed by keeping in mind the recent judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gurbachan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (Dead) Lrs and Others, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 875 and Nazir Mohamed vs J. Kamala reported in AIR 2020 SC 4321 . 7. In view of the above discussion, the Second Appeal is required to be dismissed as no merits found, neither any substantial question of law has arisen for the consideration of this Court. 8. Accordingly, the present Second Appeal stands dismissed. 9. In view of the dismissal of the main matter, connected civil application does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly.