1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 303 /2011 (Padmakar s/o Krushnarao Umate vs. Ramesh Shyamrao Vaidya ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. K R Lule, Adv. for appellant CORAM : A.B.CHAUDHARI,J. DATED : 25th August,2011. Heard. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact on the issue of alleged encroachment. As a matter of fact, the findings are perverse inasmuch the area under the shed is owned by the appellant and, therefore, is not an encroachment. According to him, assuming that the appellant has put up a shed for storing manure the same being in his own area, the Court does not get jurisdiction to pass a decree asking the appellant to remove the manure and the shed. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, I find that these are the findings of fact concurrently recorded by the both the Courts below. The Courts below have relied upon the report of Taluqa Inspector of Land Records, Wardha who was appointed as Commissioner. The report of TILR does not appear to have been objected by the appellant and in that view of the matter, the Courts below were justified in relying on the said 2 report of Commissioner (Exh.45) and the map (Exh.63). Moreover, it would be appropriate to quote the following portion regarding the report of the TILR from the judgment of the lower Appellate Court :- “(d) On 10.7.2006 he measured field survey No.121 of plaintiff Padmakar Umate and submitted a measurement map (Exh.63) which reveals following features :- (i) An occupant of field survey no.121 has encroached 0.01HR land of field survey No.120. (ii) An occupant of field survey no.121 also has encroached on Govt. Abadi land admeasuring 0.01 HR land. (iii) An occupant of field Survey No.121 also has enacorached on Govt.Abadi land admeasuring 0.01 HR land.” (Quoted from Page 12 of paper-book) In that view of the matter, it is not possible for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record or to interfere with the findings recorded concurrently by both the Courts below. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this Appeal. Second Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE sahare