1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.20 OF 2007 Ghanshyam Changdeo Kulpe ..Appellant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors ..Respondents Ms.Gauri Godse, Advocate, for the appellant Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar i/b.Mr.S.M.Kamble, Advocate, for the respondent Nos.7A to 7C CORAM : C. L. PANGARKAR, J. DATE : 14TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. . This is a Second Appeal preferred by the original plaintiff after having lost in both the Courts below. 2. The plaintiff instituted a suit alleging that the land bearing Survey No.232 was alloted by the Government of Maharashtra to Koli community. Accordingly, said mutation entry was taken in the Revenue Record. It is also alleged that out of Survey No.232, 1R 20Guntha land was in possession of the 2 grandmother of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is in possession since then. The plaintiff is not using the said land for drying nets and fish due to the injunction Order passed in Regular Civil Suit No.81 of 1986 filed by one Mr.Ankaleshwaraiya. The suit property is said to be situated on the sea-shore. The plaintiff has planted coconut and cyrus trees on the disputed portion of the land. 3. It is further alleged that the Government of Maharashtra came to know that the plaintiff had made an encroachment and therefore, passed an Order on 18th April, 1995 resuming the land in favour of the Government of Maharashtra. In pursuance to that Order the land bearing Survey No.232 out of admeasuring 2R 14Gunthas, 1R 20Gunthas land has been resumed in favour of the Government of Maharashtra. After the Revenue Authority rejected the Revisions and Appeals, this suit came to be filed. In this suit, the plaintiff 3 had made a prayer that the Order passed by defendant No.3 on 18th April, 1995 is ultra virus, illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The second prayer was for a declaration that the mutation entry No.10956 is wrong and illegal and the third one is for an injunction. 4. The plaintiff had also contended that defendant No.7, to whom the land was given by the Government of Maharashtra entered into an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has been in possession of the land in pursuance to that agreement of sale. 5. The suit was resisted by the defendants. 6. The learned Judge of the Trial Court upon consideration of the evidence and submissions made before him found that the 4 plaintiff is not in possession and he is not entitled to any protection under Section 53/A/ of the Transfer of Property Act and he has not become owner by adverse possession and that the order dated 18th April, 1995 is neither null nor void. The mutation entry is correct and it was also found that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to try the suit holding that the learned Judge dismissed the suit. 7. The plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the Order of the learned Judge of the Trial Court preferred an appeal before the District Court. The learned District Judge concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5 9. The learned counsel for the appellant urges two grounds mainly the plaintiff has a remedy of filing Civil Suit challenging the mutation entry as well as order dated 18th April, 1995. 10. It was urged that the Trial Court having held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction he should not have recorded the findings on the rest of the issues. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. He was never heard before the mutation entry was taken and he is sought to be dispossessed on the basis of the mutation entry. He submits that this was in breach of the principles of natural justice and the plaintiff should have been heard. 12. It appears that the plaintiff admittedly does not claim any independent 6 right to be in possession in as much as he does not claim that the land was ever alloted to him by the Government of Maharashtra. The land is admittedly alloted to defendant No.7. The plaintiffs possession is through defendant No.7. The defendant No.7's lease is terminated and land is resumed to Government. Since defendant No.7 is now not entitled to retain possession the plaintiff has no right. That land has now been resumed to the Government of Maharashtra is a fact. Since the defendant No.7 itself has no right, the plaintiff cannot be said to be having any right to seek an injunction against defendant  State. 13. As far as the mutation entry is concerned, the mutation entry neither confers title nor extinguishes the title. The mutation entry merely says that there has been an encroachment on the suit property and, therefore, the land should be resumed in 7 favour of the Government of Maharashtra. None of the rights of the plaintiff is affected by this mutation entry. It was contended that by this mutation entry, the Government of Maharashtra seeks to dispossess the plaintiff and therefore, it cannot be said that right of the plaintiff is not affected. Statement cannot be accepted. The plaintiff has not shown any right to be in possession as he is a rank trespasser. The Government of Maharashtra has a right to resume the land. The plaintiff seeks an order of injunction. Law is settled that the trespasser is not entitled to relief of injunction. 14. In the circumstances, I do not find any substance in the Second Appeal which is accordingly dismissed. No substantial question of law is raised. (C.L.PANGARKAR, J.) 8