1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 288 of 2008 Gendlal s/o Ramlakhan Kachhawara & anr. ...Versus... Mital s/o Abhilash Shaha Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Ms. P.Rane h/f Mr.Parsodkar Advocate for appellants. Mr. N.R. Bhishikar Advocate for respondent. …. CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 30.09.2011. Heard. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below in the matter of removal of alleged encroachment is illegal. According to her, the courts below ought to have held that the appellants have been in lawful possession of the suit area and consequently the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff ought to have been dismissed. According to her, the appellants possess possessory title over the suit area against which there could not have been a decree. 2 Per contra, Mr.Bhishikar, learned counsel for the respondent, vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that there is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below and this Court need not interfere with the same. I have gone through the impugned judgments and orders made by the courts below. It is not in dispute that plot No. 7 belongs to appellants. It is further not in dispute that the appellants do not own the adjacent plot No.8 nor the appellants have any semblance of right over plot No. 8. The further fact that plot no.8 was ultimately allotted to the plaintiff by the Government by the document of grant is not in dispute. Both the plots, i.e. plot Nos. 7 and 8, thus being owned by the Government, there should not be any dispute about demarcation and ownership. Plot No. 8 having been allotted to the plaintiff, the appellants cannot claim any type of right muchless the one for possession. Even assuming that possession of appellants was found on some portion of plot No.8 the same is obviously illegal. Such a possession would never be protected by the courts of law. Fact, however, remains that the plots are owned by the Government. Even if the possession was of the appellants over the alleged encroached portion, the possession cannot be referred to lawful possession in the light of clear fact that allotment of plot no.8 was made to the 3 respondent/plaintiff. In that view of the matter, I do not find any error with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the courts below. In view of above, there is no merit in the present second appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in the present second appeal. S.A. No. 288 of 2008 is dismissed. Judge /TA/