:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL NO.477 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.477 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO.477 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1168 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1168 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1168 OF 2008 M/s. Shri Saraswati Concrete Works ...Appellant. v. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. Mr.A.B.Borkar , adv. for the Appellant. Mr.B.H.Mehta, A.G.P. for the State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 15th July, 2008. DATE: 15th July, 2008. DATE: 15th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. This second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against dismissal of the suit and the regular civil appeal. 3. To state in brief, according to the plaintiff, he had purchased land bearing City Survey No.195/2/Kh under registered sale deed in 1957 and since then, he is carrying on business of manufacturing cement pipes on the said land. To the Southern side of the said land, there is a piece of land belonging to the Government. According to the plaintiff, since 1957, that piece of land is in his use as a passage. According to him, he has perfected his title over the said land through adverse possession and alternatively, he has easementary :2: right of way over the said plot. On 17-11-1987, the Government issued notice to him to remove the encroachment from the said plot. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title by adverse possession and alternatively, easementary right with perpetual injunction. The suit was contested by the respondent/defendant by filing written statement. It was denied that the said land to the Southern side of the land of the plaintiff is in his possession and that he is using the same as a passage. It is also denied that he has easementary right of way on the said land. It is contended that the said piece of land has been allotted by the Government to Anath Mahila Ashram and the possession was to be given to the said Ashram. However, the plaintiff made encroachment and, therefore, the notice was issued. Several issues were framed by the learned trial Court and after hearing the parties, the trial Court rejected the claim of the plaintiff based on adverse possession as well as the easement rights. In the result, the suit came to be dismissed. The plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.589 of 1994. That appeal was also dismissed. 4. There is concurrent finding of the fact of both the Courts below that the plaintiff has not proved his adverse possession nor he has proved easementary rights over the said land. It is material to note that the plaintiff had also claimed easementary right from the :3: land to the Northern side and about that he had filed the suit, which he lost. However, in appeal, the appellate Court had directed the Government to make available 12 ft. wide approach road to the plaintiff from the Northern side of that land. Second appeal against that judgment is also dismissed by this Court today only. 5. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, I find that no substantial question of law is involved in the present second appeal. In the result, second appeal stands dismissed. 6. As the appeal itself is dismissed, civil application does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)