1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 368 OF 2008 (Rambhau Ganpati Nagpure vs. Ganesh Nathaji Warbe & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 28, 2009. Heard Shri De, learned counsel for appellant - defendant and Shri Kotwal, learned counsel for respondents – plaintiffs No. 1 to 3. The challenge is to the concurrent judgments and decrees delivered by the Courts below decreeing the suit of respondents – plaintiffs for encroachment and restoration of possession. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that as plaint map has not been proved, the extent of encroachment has not come on record and therefore, the suit needs to be dismissed. He relies upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kashinath R. Chopade vs. Purushottam T. Tekade, reported at 2005(4) ALL MR 519, Dagdoba Tryambak Muley vs. Mainabai Harchand Rajput, reported at 2007 (3) ALL MR 626 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the 2 case of Haryana Waqf Board vs. Shanti Sarup & Ors., reported at 2008 AIR SCW 6500. He also invites attention to the order passed by this Court on 18.9.2008 while issuing notice in the matter. He states that in consolidation proceedings no doubt dhura was straightened but then that dhura was not straightened by taking the land of the plaintiffs and he invites attention to contentions as narrated in para 8 of the appellate Court judgment to urge that the dhura was straightened by taking lands between the land of present appellant and land Gat No. 278 of Gulab Nagpure. He, therefore, states that as the alleged encroached portion has not been ascertained, appeal needs to be allowed. Shri Kotwal, learned counsel, on the other hand, states that it is the specific case of parties that dhura between field of defendant and plaintiffs which were earlier triangular was straightened by revenue authorities and the defendant has fixed the barbed wire fencing, thereby depriving the plaintiffs from enjoyment and ownership over the land which was earlier in their possession up to the place of old dhura. He states that this has been brought on record by bringing map (Exh. 70). With the assistance of both the counsel, I have perused the impugned judgments as also 3 reported judgments. This is not the case where any local investigation was necessary. The fact that dhura was straightened and therefore area in possession of present appellant was increased was admitted by appellant. Earlier area in possession of the appellant was 4.23 Hectares and it was increased to 5.30 Hectare. This position is appreciated by the lower appellate Court in paras 29, 31 and 31 of its judgment. The trial Court no doubt has made some comments on the orders passed by the revenue authorities in consolidation proceedings but those observations are not relevant before the Civil Court as Civil Court has considered the civil rights of parties with reference to revenue records earlier prevailing and changed areas. The relative position of fields by the plaintiffs and defendant is not in dispute and (Exh. 70) map is not demonstrated to be either erroneous or perverse. In the circumstances, I find that reference to various judgments made in present facts is totally misconceived. No substantial question of law arises in this Second Appeal. It is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE *GS.