1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2010 [Prabhakar mahadeorao Nimat Vs. State of Maharashtra ] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Shri M. A. Sable, Adv for appellant. CORAM: .R. M. SAVANT J. Dated: 14 th JANUARY, 2011. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that plaintiff has failed to prove his title and possession over the suit land in question i.e. land admeasuring 3 Hectares and 57 Ares. It is undisputed that the land in question claimed by the plaintiff was acquired and the plaintiff’s father has received compensation in terms of the Award Ex. 50. The acquisition proceedings were completed on the declaration of the Award on 30th March 1991 and the public purpose was for Warud Lower Project. Plaintiff has filed a suit challenging the notice issued by the Revenue Authorities asking 2 him to remove his encroachment and handover possession of the land in question. In the said suit, the stand of the plaintiff was that pursuant to the acquisition, on account of the non utilization of the lands for the said project the lands were auctioned. The person who held the auction was not the proper authority and the auction ought to have been held by some other authority. Pertinently the auction was not challenged in the said suit. In the appellate Court however plaintiff, it seems made a turn around, and came out with a case that the plaintiff participated in the auction and was the highest bidder. The appellate Court on consideration of the documentary evidence on record rejected the said case of the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have concurrently held and recorded a finding of fact that suit property in question was acquired and the plaintiff’s title was resultantly extinguished. The plaintiff’s occupation of the land was therefore that as and by way of encroachment and in the nature of a trespass. Considering the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, in my view no substantial question of law arises in the above Second Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE svk 3 4 5 6