1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.207/2008 Shipali wd/o Ravindranath Mandal and others ...Versus... Ram s/o Panchanan Mandal ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Ms T.H. Udeshi, Adv. for appellants] [Shri V.S. Kukday, Adv. for respondent] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 08.07.2009 There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below that the plaintiff and defendant were entitled to equal share in suit property that was alloted by the rehabilitation department of the Government to their father Panchanan Mandal. Learned Counsel for appellants submits that the first appellate Court has recorded contrary finding holding that the appellants and the respondent are coparceners. She further argued that the land allotted by the rehabilitation department cannot be partitioned and therefore, counter claim could not be decreed. Learned Counsel for respondent vehemently opposed the appeal and argued that there is no document from the rehabilitation department or any Government department showing exclusive allotment of the same piece of land in favour of the appellants and all the 2 attempts to show such exclusive allotment or grant have failed and the Courts below have found that the plaintiff and defendant will succeed to the estate. Having heard learned Counsel for the rival parties, I find that the land originally belonged to the Government and the rehabilitation department allotted the land to Panchanan Mandal who was refugee from Bangladesh. It is further seen and as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the respondent was given Government service in the forest department and the same has no bearing inasmuch as the suit property is inherited by the plaintiff and defendant. As regards partition of Government land, the first appellate Court has rightly found that it is for the concerned department to examine the validity of such partition or as the case may be. No fault can be found out with the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. There is no merit in the second appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Learned Counsel for appellants submits that sowing operation has been done in the suit field by the appellants and therefore, the appellants will be entitled to the benefit thereof. Therefore, this Court should not deprive the appellants of the said benefit. Request is reasonable and hence, I order that possession shall not be taken till 31.03.2010. JUDGE ssw