1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 235 OF 2005 Babu Krishnath Metekar deceased through L.Rs & others .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Pandit Mahadeo Dane & another ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri M.L. Dharashive, Advocate for the appellants Shri C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No. 1 CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 6th October, 2010. PER COURT : The Second Appeal is filed by the original defendants. The plaintiff had filed suit for removal of encroachment and possession as described in the measurement maps. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants had encroached the 27 R land, as per the measurement. The Trial Court after appreciation of evidence of cadestral surveyors PW 2 & 3, so also the evidence of defendants, came to the conclusion that the defendants have encroached upon the property of 2 the plaintiff, as detailed in the measurement map. The Appellate Court confirmed the finding of the Trial Court. The defendants have assailed the said order before this Court. 2. Shri Dharashive, learned Counsel for the appellants, vehemently contended that the said measurements cannot be relied upon as his land has not been measured. According to him, the measurement is done behind back of the appellants, no notice of measurement was issued to the appellants. According to the learned Counsel, the said measurement maps cannot be formed the basis for passing the decree. 3. During the pendency of present appeal , at the request of appellant, the land was re- measured, and the cadestral Surveyor has submitted his report along with measurement map, showing the encroachment made by the appellants. Shri Dharashive submits that the said report of the cadestral surveyor who has measured the lands, pursuant to the orders of this Court, is not admissible to the appellants. According to 3 him, the said report is improper and he has filed an affidavit, challenging the said report. But the affidavit no where discloses any grounds, on which the said report is being challenged, and also no details are given as to the grounds on which said report is not being accepted by the appellants. 4. I have heard the learned Counsels for the respective parties, and I have gone through the Judgment. The land has been measured thrice, the earlier measurements carried out by PW 2 & 3 have been proved by examining the cadestral surveyors, who have carried out the measurements. Both the cadestral surveyors have categorically stated that the defendants have encroached upon 27 R of land of plaintiffs. The details of encroachment by each defendants have been spelt out separately in the report. 5. The evidence shows that the present appellants were also present, when the measurement was carried out, and as per the report submitted by the cadestral surveyor, the 4 encroachment is shown to have been made by the present appellants. Though it is settled law that the measurement maps submitted by the cadestral surveyor would not be directly admissible in evidence without it being proved in evidence. Still there are two measurement maps, proved by PW 2 & 3. Even ignoring the measurement map produced on record by cadestral surveyor who had measured the lands, pursuant to the directions of this Court, still consistently both the cadestral surveyors have found that the encroachment is committed by the defendants. The encroachment can only be proved by the evidence of cadestral surveyors only. 6. Both the Courts appreciated evidence on record rightly. No error can be found in the Judgments of the Courts below. No substantial question of law is involved in the Second Appeal, as such Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM*235.10 SA