1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 966 OF 2005 Bhaurao Tukaram Matalkar Appellant V E R S U S Dajiba Panduji Kadam - died - LR's and others Respondent Mr. S.V. Chandole, Advocate for the appellant Mr. M.V. Ghatge, Advocate holding for Mr. B.N.Patil, Advocate for the respondent No.2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 28th June, 2010 PER COURT This second appeal is challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below that the appellant had encroached on a piece of land having survey No. 4 / 10, ad-measuring 23 Are, which belonged to the respondents. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant asserted that the Courts below committed an error in ignoring the admitted discrepancies in the measurement report. He pointed out that the Court Commissioner, who took measurements of the lands in question, did not show the exact area of the lands in question, including the road, which divided the lands survey No. 4 / 10 and 4 / 11. However, this discrepancy is not material to the dispute. 2 The Courts below recorded their findings that the appellant was entitled only to the land Survey No. 4 / 11, having regard to his case that he had purchased 80 Are land. In other words, the Courts below held that his 80 Are land did not comprise of land survey No. 4 / 10. In view of this, I find no error in the Judgments of the Courts below. There appears no substantial question of Law in this appeal. Appeal stands dismissed. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) srm/sa/966/05