... 1 ... IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.653 OF 2004 ........................................................... OFFICE NOTES, OFFICE MEMORANDUM OF CORAM, APPEARANCES, COURT’S COURT’S OR JUDGES ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS ORDERS AND REGISTRAR’S ORDERS ........................................................... Shri Sandesh Patil for the Appellant. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. : A. S. OKA, J. : A. S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : AUGUST 02, 2006 : AUGUST 02, 2006 : AUGUST 02, 2006 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant. The suit filed by the Appellant-Plaintiff has been dismissed by the Trial Court and decree of dismissal has been confirmed in Appeal. After having heard the learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant, I find that there are no substantial questions of law. The Appellant-Plaintiff was in possession of a plot of land on which he had allegedly constructed two houses. It is an admitted position that the Appellant was not the owner of the land on which he had constructed two houses. The documentary evidence on record shows that the land which was in possession of the Appellant was ... 2 ... acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the possession thereof was transferred to the acquiring body for public purpose. It is also borne out from the record that a plot of land admeasuring 100 sq. mtr. has been allotted by the Respondents to the Appellant. 2. In view of the concurrent findings of fact, no substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed. No orders as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE