1 Second Appeal No. 673.04 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No.673 OF 2004 Bhagwan Bapurao @ Raosaheb .. APPELLANT VERSUS The State of Maharshtra & others ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate for the appellant Smt. R.K. Ladda, A.G.P. for respondent /State CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 6th December, 2010. PER COURT : This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit, challenging the Judgment of the S.L.D.T., declaring the appellant to be surplus. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal, appellate Court also dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has assailed the said Judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2. Shri Shelke, learned Counsel for the 2 Second Appeal No. 673.04 appellant strenuously contended that the Courts below erred in not appreciating the case of the plaintiff, in as much as proceedings before the S.L.D.T. were erroneous. Even notice under Section 17 as is required under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Act has not been issued. As such, proceedings were bad in law. Shri Shelke,learned Counsel further submitted that the competent authority had directed change in date of birth, the same should have been accepted by the Court. The Court committed an error in not accepting the same. As the plaintiff was major on the date of submission of return, his holding could not have been clubbed with the holdings of his father. 3. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the respective parties I have gone through the judgments passed by both the Courts below. Both the Courts on appreciation of evidence has come to the conclusion that the date of birth of the present appellant was 1st June, 1960 and not 1st August, 1957 as contended. It was observed by both the Courts that after proceedings under the 3 Second Appeal No. 673.04 Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Act were initiated, thereafter, the plaintiff applied for the change in date of birth. Even the Courts have taken into consideration the fact that in 1973 the plaintiff was in 7th standard and in March-April 1980 had appeared for 12th standard examination. If his date of birth as stated by him is considered he would be 23 years of age, when he appeared for 12th standard examination, which is highly improbable. The Courts below have taken into consideration all these aspects and has not accepted the case. The view taken by the Courts below is a plausible view. The Second Appeal cannot be entertained only on the ground that some other conclusion is possible. 4. In the light of the above, no error in the Judgments of the Courts below. The Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the Second 4 Second Appeal No. 673.04 Appeal, the Civil Application is also disposed of. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE SDM* 712.10/61210