sa159.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.159 OF 2011 ,With CA/4436/2011 ,In SA/159/2011 DEVIDA GANU CHAVAN ... APPELLANT. VERSUS SUPDABAI BHIKA JADHAV ... RESPONDENT. ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr.Garud V.B. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 23rd NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT: 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. He submits that while carrying out measurement of the land in question, the T.I.L.R. has not followed the procedure which is prescribed in the Civil Manual. Notice was not served on the appellant and the measurement had been carried out in absence of the appellant. In fact, there was no measurement at all and the procedure which is prescribed, has not been followed. There is no evidence on record to suggest sa159.11 2 that some individual had come to serve notice on the appellant and the appellant refused such service of notice. He further submitted that the evidence of T.I.L.R. should not have been accepted in absence of proper service on the appellant and also in absence of following procedure prescribed. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the appeal deserves consideration. 2. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court, which is confirmed by the appellate Court, it appears that both the Courts after appreciation of the evidence of T.I.L.R. DW-4 Shivanand Kale held that he has properly measured the land. Sketch was prepared, there were no other witnesses present while carrying out the measurement. The said T.I.L.R. was cross-examined. However, in his cross-examination, nothing has come on record so as to disbelieve the evidence brought on record by the original defendant. There is concurrent findings of sa159.11 3 facts. The said findings recorded by the Courts below are in consonance with the evidence brought on record, no perversity is shown. Upon careful perusal of the findings recorded by the trial Court, it is crystal clear that the appellant herein refused to accept the notice. Therefore, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant that there was no notice given to the appellant is devoid of any merit. To ascertain the encroachment, measurement of the land and preparation of the map is vital and said exercise has been done through DW-4 Shivanand Kale from T.I.L.R. office, his evidence has been believed by both the Courts below. 3. This second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law for consideration. Second appeal stands dismissed summarily. Consequently, civil application does not survive and stands disposed of. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. PLK/*