1 SA(ST)8797 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO.8797 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.550 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST)NO.8797 OF 2011 Ramesh Sopan Nikam and Ors. ...Appellants Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Atul Damale a/w. Ms.Pallavi N. dabhokar and Mr. Rampal Kohli for Appellants ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 3rd May, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants and the Respondents. 2. The Appellants are the Original Plaintiffs and the Respondents are the Original Defendants. The suit was filed by the Appellants for claiming title of the suit property on the ground that they are become owners of the suit property by adverse possession. The Plaintiffs also challenged the order passed by the Collector under section 135 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and asked for a declaration that the said order passed by the 2 SA(ST)8797 of 2011 Collector and by the Appellate Authorities was illegal. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and the appeal which was filed against the said judgment and order was also dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submits that the Collector could not have passed an order directing the Appellants herein to hand over the possession of the suit property. It was then submitted that both the Courts below had relied on the evidence which was given before the Revenue Authorities for the purpose of holding that the order passed by the Revenue Authorities was not illegal. It was further submitted that there was evidence to suggest that the Appellants were in possession since 1965. 4. It will not be possible to accept the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the Appellants. Both the Courts below have arrived at the conclusion that the Plaintiffs had failed to establish his title by way of adverse possession and have held that the order passed under section 135 of the said Act is not illegal. No substantial question of law is raised in the Second Appeal. 5. So far as the orders which are passed under section 135 of the said Act is concerned, the said orders can be 3 SA(ST)8797 of 2011 challenged in appeal and if the order of Collector is confirmed in appeal, one more opportunity is given to the aggrieved party to file a suit within one year from the date of the said order seeking declaration from the Civil Court about his title over the suit land. Accordingly, the present Appellants filed the said suit. However, was unable to establish their title over the suit land. 6. In this view of the matter, since no substantial question of law is raised in the Second Appeal, the Second Appeal is dismissed. Civil application does not survive and is also disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)