1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 629 OF 2007 Watya Ditya Padavi & others .. APPELLANTS VERSUS State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Shri S.P. Shah, Advocate for the appellants. Smt. R.K. Laddha, AGP for the State. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 16 th September, 2009 PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiffs raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Plaintiffs claim that they are tribals and were in possession of the forest land since 1950-1960 onwards. They further contend that in view of the policy framed by the State Government, their occupation needs to be regularised. Contention raised by the plaintiffs is controverted by defendants 2 by filing written statement. It is contended by defendants that plaintiffs were not in possession as contended by them for the period commencing from 1959-1960 onwards or at any time prior to 1978. It is thus contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek benefit under the policy framed by the State Government. 3 on the basis of pleadings issues were framed by the trial court. Neither plaintiffs nor defendants lead any evidence and filed pursis to that effect. Plaintiffs presented document at sr. no. 154 so also document at sr. no. 1 to 157 alongwith list exh. 115/A which was admitted by learned counsel for the defendants. Thus, taking into consideration documentary evidence placed on record, trial court proceeded to decide the matter. It transpires on perusal of judgments delivered by both the courts below that plaintiffs have not placed on record any document demonstrating that they were in possession as contended by them at any point of time prior to 1978. Thus, plaintiffs are dis-entitled to claim benefit of the policy framed by the State Government in respect of regularisation of occupation of the Adiwases / plaintiffs occupying the forest lands. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Decision rendered by the courts below need not be interfered. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 3 4 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa629.07.odt