1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 323/2009 SATISHKUMAR HANUMANPRASAD TIWARI VERSUS NARESHKUMR KRISHNARAO TIWASKAR & OTHERS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Abhijit Deshpande, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri S.V.Sohani. Advocate, for Respondents CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 30 , 2009 . Heard learned counsel for the parties. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the appellant/plaintiff had not succeeded in proving that the respondents/ defendant nos. 1 & 2 had taken illegal possession of the land owned by the plaintiff and had encroached upon the suit land. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on the proper appreciation of the material on record. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant that the sale effected by the appellant’s predecessor in title in favour of the respondent on 27.3.1979 is hit by the provisions of Section 57(2) of 2 the Tenancy Act, is liable to be rejected for the simple reason that the land was already converted to non agricultural use by an order passed by the competent authority on 16.12.1978 under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Since the land was already converted to non-agricultural use after December, 1978, there was no necessity of seeking permission under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, before selling the same to the respondents. Since no substantial question of law arise for consideration in the second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit