1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Second Appeal No. 319 of 2008 (MSRTC Vs. Arun (Maharaj) s/o Wamanrao Gadge & 3 ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 23 rd September, 2008 Heard Shri Wankhede for the appellant, and Shri Joharapurkar for the respondent no.1. The appellant- Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation is the original defendant no.1. A suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 for a declaration that he was the owner of the suit field bearing S. No. 156/3K and the defendants be restrained from disturbing his possession over the same as the Corporation had acquired the land S. No. 156/1 and not land S. No. 156/3K which belonged to the plaintiff. A mandatory injunction was also sought for removal of mutation entry effected in the name of the Corporation in the revenue record. 2 The appellant-Corporation denied the claim of the plaintiff by filing a written statement. It was admitted by the Corporation that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated for acquisition of land bearing S. No. 156/1. It was pleaded by the appellant- Corporation that land S. No. 156/1 was wrongly recorded in the name of the plaintiff Arun Gadge and S. No.156/3K was recorded in the name of Pramod Gadge. This mistake, according to the appellant-Corporation, had occurred at the time of re-survey done by the Tahsildar and 1.15 hectare of land came to be acquired from field S. No. 156/1 on an assumption that the said survey number belonged to Pramod Gadge. The Corporation, therefore, sought for the dismissal of the suit. The trial Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff was successful in proving that the defendants had wrongly taken the possession of the suit field on paper and the defendants intended to take possession of the field of the plaintiff illegally. The trial Court further held that the defendants had wrongly taken the entry in the 3 name of the Corporation in the revenue records. While recording these findings, the trial Court considered the various documents which were produced on record and which pertained to the land acquisition proceedings. These documents including the copy of the Section 4 Notification clearly showed that the appellant-Corporation had acquired land S. No. 156/1 and not S. No. 156/3K which belonged to the plaintiff. The trial Court held that in the notification and in the other correspondence between the Government officials, it was mentioned that the land S. No. 156/1 was being acquired. It was also observed that the record showed that the actual possession of the land was not taken, though paper possession was shown by the defendants. The findings recorded by the trial Court were confirmed by the first appellate Court in an appeal filed by the appellant-Corporation. I have perused both the judgments in detail and have also perused the record and proceedings. It is apparent from the record that the appellant-Corporation had acquired land S. No. 156/1 which belonged to Pramod 4 Gadge and the plaintiff was the owner of land S. No. 156/3K which was never acquired by the appellant-Corporation. The appellant- Corporation, however, illegally tried to take possession of this land and both the Courts, in the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, rightly held that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration and mandatory injunction as sought by him. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of fact and do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP