dwelling house to the extent of 76.22 square metres. Plan-II, as set out above, has permitted the petitioner to purchase the land to the extent of 200 square metres. The only dispute is regarding the distillery, which the petitioner wants to be included in the purchase area. Apart from the fact that Plan-III, which the petitioner wants to be confirmed, results into fragmentation of the land of the Bhatkar, one more reason articulated by the Tribunal for not interfering with the concurrent finding of the Mamlatdar and the Collector is that, the structure of the distillery is already directed to be demolished. I have gone through the judgment and order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 91/2009, which shows that except a partial modification to the extent of directing mesne profits, the order of demolition is not interfered with. The petitioner under Plan-II is entitled to purchase 200 square metres of land, including the dwelling house in respect of which, the petitioner is declared as a Mundkar. Thus, when the structure of the distillery is directed to be demolished, I do not find that any exception can be taken to the finding recorded by the Courts below, while confirming Plan-II. It is now well settled that when there is no jurisdictional error, resulting into manifest injustice, this
