: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.134 OF 2009 The Managing Director City Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.(CIDCO) .. Appellants V/s. Kantilal Valaji Patel & Ors . .. Respondents ..... Mr. A.M. Kulkarni for the appellants None for the respondent ..... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 23rd JUNE, 2009. P.C. : 1. The respondents herein filed suit in the Court of 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane being R.C.Suit. No.1047 of 1983 alleging that though land admeasuring 4 guntas came to be acquired by the present appellants, the appellants subsequently took charge of the entire land i.e. 4 guntas of land which was acquired and 18 guntas of land by committing : 2 : trespass. The learned Judge who conducted the trial of the said suit, arrived at conclusion that appellants have committed tresspass in respect of 18 gunthas of the land which was not acquired and passed decree for possession of the said 18 gunthas by judgment and decree dated 27th April,2005. Being aggrieved by this judgment and decree appellants filed Civil Appeal No.53 of 2006 in the District Court. Learned District Judge,4 Thane dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 22nd October, 2008, against which this Second Appeal is filed. 2. I have heard learned advocate Mr.Kulkarni appearing on behalf of the appellants. It was argued before this Court that the respondents knew that the appellants have distributed all the land i.e. 22 gunthas to various allottees and that the said allottees have been put in possession of different areas. According to Mr. Kulkarni the respondents ought to have joined those allottees so as to have complete relief in the matter and to relieve the appellants from the job of putting respondents in possession of 18 gunthas, if at all the case of the respondents that 18 gunthas of land was illegally : 3 : taken charge of is accepted by Court. 3. Both the Courts have arrived at conclusion that appellants have encroached upon 18 gunthas of land. 4. The argument advanced by Counsel for the appellants that the appellants will be held responsible for not delivering the possession cannot be gone into as of today as the decree has yet to be put up for execution. The appellants have committed trespass and hence primary responsibility for returning the land to the respondents is on the appellants and that is how the decree is passed against the appellants. Learned Judge before whom the trial was taken up or the District Court before the appeal was taken up were not required to go into as to who are in possession. Nothing could be pointed out by appellants that they were justified in acquiring 18 gunthas of land and to that extent, it can be observed that they have tresspassed upon land of the respondents. I do not see any substantial question of law being raised by the appellants. Both the Courts have arrived at proper conclusion and no interference is required in the matter. Hence, the appeal is : 4 : required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence, the order. ORDER . Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. . Civil Application No.7926 of 2009 is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y. Ganoo, J.)