1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 517/2010 (Khemdas Jairam Dangare Versus Devidas Fakiraji Patil) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Piyush Kadam, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : DECEMBER 7 , 2010 . Heard. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for removal of encroachment. According to the plaintiff, he was a permanent licensee of one Gajanan on plot no.9. It was the case of the plaintiff that the land under plots at Indira Awas Yojana of which the suit plot no.9 was one of the plots, was initially owned by the defendant and the same was acquired by the Government. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant started digging pits on a 20 feet road left by the Government on the southern side of plot no.9 and, hence, the plaintiff claimed a decree of possession of the encroached area and permanent and mandatory injunction. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and also denied that the plaintiff was a licensee of Gajanan. It was admitted by the defendant that he was initially the owner of the field of which some area was acquired by the Government. The defendant denied that he had made any encroachment either on suit plot no.9 or had made an encroachment on the road. According to the defendant, he 2 had dug the pits for the construction of the plinth on the land owned by him. The defendant filed a counter claim seeking mandatory and permanent injunction against the plaintiff. Both the Courts, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the plaintiff had been unsuccessful in proving that he was a licensee on plot no.9 from Gajanan. The Courts held that the plaintiff had been unsuccessful in proving that the defendant had encroached on the suit plot or on the Government road. The Courts held that the defendant had been successful in proving that the plaintiffs constructed a hut, disturbing the possession of the defendant on the site owned by the defendant. Since the findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts and they do not give rise to any substantial question of law, the second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE