IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.438 of 1999 THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD. ……………………………………DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-APPELLANT. Versus 1. RAM SUNDAR GOPE. 2. KAMESHWAR GOPE. 3. NAND KESHWAR GOPE. ALL SONS OF LATE SHEO NANDAN GOPE. 4. JAG MOHAN GOPE. 5. LAL MOHAN GOPE, BOTH SONS OF LATE BISHUNDEO GOPE. 6. SATYA NARAYAN YADAV. 7. DEEPAK YADAV. 8. RUPAK YADAV. 9. RAM SWAROOP YADAV. ALL SONS OF LATE JAGJIWAN GOPE. 10. RAM JIWAN GOPE. 11. DUKHAN GOPE, BOTH SONS OF MAHESH GOPE. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAGA BIGHA, P.S. AND DISTRICT-AURANGABAD. ……………………PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Appellant :M/s. Anil Kumar Jha, Government Advocate-II. For the Respondents :Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate. ------------- 6. 3.7.2009. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, the learned Government Advocate-II, in this appeal preferred by the State challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.6.1999 and 22.7.1999 respectively passed in the Title Appeal No.20 of 1993 by Sri Bindu Bhushan Pathak, the learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad confirming the judgment and decree dated 8.12.1992 and 12.2.1993 passed by Sri Prem Chandra Gupta, the erstwhile Munsif, Aurangabad in Title Suit No.252 of 1989. The questions sought to be raised by the learned - 2 - Government Advocate are two folds; (i) whether an unregistered hukumnama can confirm any Title and (ii) whether in view of the provisions of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the courts below acted in accordance with law to decree the suit. The two questions raised by the learned Government Advocate cannot find any favour since in the facts and circumstances they are neither substantial questions of law which are required to be considered by this Court in Second Appeal and secondly because the two courts below on the matters raised by the Government Advocate have considered and decided against the plea raised by the State Government and, therefore, they are concurrent finding of facts. When concurrent finding of facts on certain issues appear on the face the same cannot be a matter for consideration in the Second Appeal more so when it is not a substantial question of law. The provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act would not be applicable in the case as the alleged transaction took place before the appointed day. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)