1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.341 OF 1998 Murar S/o Shivram Chaudhary ... Appellant. Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.S.Nirkhee, advocate for the appellant. Mr.P.P.More, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 14.10.2010. PER COURT 1. This is Second Appeal filed by the original plaintiff. The original plaintiff had challenged the judgment delivered by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal and Additional 2 Tahsildar (Ceiling), Nandurbar, wherein the land of the plaintiff was declared as surplus land under the provisions of Ceiling on Holdings Act. The said suit came to be dismissed. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the District Court. The District Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has assailed the said judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr.Nirkhee, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the lower appellate Court has failed in its duty by not complying the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the C.P.C. inasmuch as the points for determination were not framed in the lower appellate Court and according to him, even, the lower appellate Court had not heard the arguments of the appellant. He further contended that the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal had not followed the procedure by virtue of which the whole proceedings stood vitiated. 3. I have gone through the judgments passed by both the Courts. The Courts have 3 observed that against the judgment delivered by the Tribunal, the present plaintiff had approached the High Court by filing Special Civil Application No.1124/1978. The High Court modified the judgment of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal and held the land holder to be a surplus land holder to the extent of 21 acres 31 gunthas. The said judgment of the High Court had not been assailed before the Apex Court and it became final. Thereafter, the present proceedings have been filed. Both the Courts have rightly observed that the proceedings under the Ceiling Act had attained finality and it had merged in the judgment of the High Court. The same was not open for the appellant to again assail by a separate suit. Perusing the judgment of the appellate Court, it is manifest that the learned advocate for the appellant was heard. Even he had submitted the case laws. Non-framing of points for determination in this case would not be fatal as the present proceedings itself would not be tenable, in view of the judgment and order passed by the High Court in earlier proceedings. 4 4. In light of the above, no error committed by the Courts below. The Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa34198