1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal NO. 38/2010 (Laxman Tukaram Sakhare (dead) thr. Lrs Nirbhayadas Laxman Sakhare & others VERSUS Government of Maharashtra, Department of Forest, Chandrapur & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri B.D. Uke, counsel for the appellants. Shri S.S. Deshpande, counsel for the R-1 to 3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 6, 2010 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgments passed by the trial and the appellate Court dismissing the suit filed by the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the action of the Forest Department in digging trenches on the land in possession of the plaintiff was illegal. The plaintiff further prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out the work on the suit land or from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff over the same. 2 The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and denied that the plaintiff had possession over five acres of land. According to the defendants, the plaintiff was only concerned with three acres of land as the same was in his possession and the plaintiff was, therefore, given an occupancy certificate only in regard to three acres of land. According to the defendants, the plaintiff intended to grab the property of Forest Department by filing the suit and pleading that the Forest Department encroached on the land which was in possession of the plaintiff. Both the Courts, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant was digging trenches over the land in possession of the plaintiff and disturbing the possession of the plaintiff over the land. The Courts then held that the plaintiff was in possession of only three acres of land of which an occupancy certificate was issued to the plaintiff. The Courts held that possession of the plaintiff, if any, over a land of more than three acres was not referable to a valid title. Since the plaintiff had not made out a case for grant of permanent injunction and the declaratory relief, the Courts rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 3 The findings recorded by both the Courts are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE