: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 SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO. 943 OF 2007 APPEAL NO. 943 OF 2007 APPEAL NO. 943 OF 2007 Mr. Somshekhar Babasaheb Patil. ... Appellant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Amit B. Borkar for the Appellant. Mr. Amit Shetye for Respondents 2,3,4,5 and 6. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 26TH FEBRUARY 2008. : 26TH FEBRUARY 2008. : 26TH FEBRUARY 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Heard Advocate appearing for the Appellant. The Appellant is the original Plaintiff. 2. According to the case of the Appellant/Plaintiff, his grandfather was the owner of the suit lands. It is the contention of the Appellant that both the suit lands were taken over by the Government but later on the same were released. It is the case that out of the suit land possession of area admeasuring 33 gunthas out of revision survey No.82/1 was not handed over to his grandfather. The suit land was a Patilki Inam land. On 1st January 1963, in view of the Maharashtra Revenue Patil (Abolition of Office) Act, 1962, the Vatan was abolished. It is the case of the Appellant/Plaintiff that the State Government did not follow due process of law while fixing the occupancy price for re-grant of the suit lands. His submission is that there was no notice issued by the State :2: Government and on the basis of order dated 8th November 1979, a mutation entry was made in the name of one Balgonda Malgonda Patil. The contention in the suit is that the said order is illegal and the mutation entry made on the basis of the said order is null and void. 3. The Trial Court recorded a finding that the disputed land was owned by the Government and Appellant’s grand-father was only an occupant. All other challenges were rejected by the Trial Court and the suit was dismissed. 4. In the Appeal preferred by the Appellant, the District Court has considered the relevant provisions of law and has come to the come to the conclusion that requisite procedure was followed by the State Government. 5. After having heard the learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant, I find that there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Court below. The Court below and in particular the Appellate Court was right in holding that the suit challenging the order dated 8th November 1979 filed in the year 1990 was barred by limitation. No substantial question of law arises. 6. The Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE