1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.729 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1090 OF 2006 Shri Baban Dadaji Khairnar & Ors. .... Appellants Vs. The Maharashtra Govt. & Ors. .... Respondents Mr.S.P. Thorat, Advocate for appellants. Ms.S.P. Manchekar, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr.Sanjay Shinde h/f Mr.M.M. Sathaye, Advocate for respondents no.2 to 5. Coram : SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 16th July, 2009 P.C. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 12th April 2006 passed by the District Court, Nashik in Civil Appeal No. 99 of 2000 which has confirmed the decision of the trial Court dated 3rd July 2000 in Regular Civil Suit No.126 of 1992. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. 2. The appellants filed the suit herein for a declaration that mutation entry bearing no.8833 is illegal and for permanent injunction to restrain respondents no.2 to 5 from burying dead bodies of the persons from their community in the disputed portion of land admeasuring 21R situate at gat no.408/1, 408/2, 408/3 and 408/4. The challenge to the mutation entry by the appellants was based on two grounds. Firstly that the records were mutated behind their back without issuing notice to them and secondly that there 2 was no actual use of the disputed land for burying dead bodies of people from the community to which respondents no.2 to 5 belong. On both these grounds, there is concurrent finding of the courts below against the appellants. The judgment of the two courts show that witness Arvind Kothawade, Revenue Officer of respondent no.1 had issued notices to the concerned parties. He had visited the spot in presence of the panch witnesses, the appellants as well as members of Adiwasi Bhil community. He had recorded statements of appellant’s father one Dadaji Khairnar and members of Adiwasi Bhil community. He had produced the revenue file in the court containing statement of the appellant’s father. This evidence demolishes the appellants case that the revenue records were mutated behind their back. Similarly the evidence on record also establishes the actual use of the land. 3. Mr.Thorat, learned counsel for appellants submits that the action of respondent no.1 in fact amounts to acquisition of property of the appellants without going through the exercise of the procedure for acquisition and therefore the decisions of both the courts below are vitiated. It has never been the case of anybody that respondent no.1 has acquired any portion of the appellants land. The Government has only recognized the actual user of portion of the property and mutated the revenue records accordingly. In the circumstances, there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration of this Court. There is already concurrent finding as 3 regards disputed questions of facts. The appeal is dismissed in limine. In view of dismissal of the second appeal, the civil application No.1090 of 2006 does not survive, the same is accordingly disposed off. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J)