* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 1128 OF 2005 Smt. Laxmibai Keshavrao Mane­Deshmukh since decd. Thru. Her legal representatives 1A] Shri. Anandrao Keshavrao Mane­Deshmukh & Ors. .......Appellants. V/S. 1. Nishikanta Namdeo Shinde & anr. .........Respondents ­­­­­­­­­ Mr. P.R. Arjunwadkar, h/f. Mr. S.P. Thorat, adv.for appellants. Respondents and advocate absent. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 11TH DECEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Second Appeal is preferred against the concurrent findings of facts of the trial court and the first appellate court as regards title and possession of the land at Gat No.1738­A situated at Velapur, Taluka­Malshiras, District­Solapur. The courts below have held that the appellant has failed to establish that she is in possession of the land as the owner and there was any disturbance of that possession at the hands of the respondents. * 2 * 3. One Keshavrao, husband of the original plaintiff was the owner of the land at Gat No.3140 in Ceiling Case No.2/SR/187­75 the government acquired the land admeasuring 1 Hectares 96 Ares portion out of the land at Gat No. 3140 leaving behind portion admeasuring 31 Ares in the hands of Keshavrao. After acquisition, Gat No.3140 was subdivided into 3140/A as the land in the hands of the appellant and 3140/B as the land acquired by the government. Later, the government alloted the land at Gat No.3140/B to respondent no.1 on 6th August 1987 and since then he has been cultivating the land. For a period of time, Gat No. 3140/A and 3140/B were given new Gat numbers i.e. 1738/A and 1788/B. 4. It has been contended by the appellant that the land which was handed over pursuant to the acquisition proceedings to the government was on the eastern side of Gat No.3140 and the land that was to remain with Keshavrao was on the western side. It is alleged that there were some alterations made in the possession receipt showing that the land handed over to the government was on the western side and the land that remained with Keshavrao is on the eastern side. The appellants claim to have the possession receipt, however, the same is not produced before the court. 5. The main witness examined by the appellant is her son who is also her Constituted Attorney. He admitted in his evidence that on 28th April, 1988 the respondents had got both the lands measured and at the time of measurement * 3 * he was personally present. He admitted that as per the measurements, the plans for Gat No. 3140 were prepared and those plans show the land at Gat No. 1788/B as the western portion of original Gat No. 3140. He has further admitted that the appellants neither challenged those measurements nor obtained any fresh measurements thereafter. Undisputedly, in the year 1994 the Government acquired the land at Gat No.1878 and 1788/A for the State Corporation and since then the revenue records show the name of Maharashtra State Transport Corporation, Solapur as the owner of the land. The appellant has challenged the acquisition of the land by the State, and the proceedings are still pending. 6. In the backdrop of these established facts the courts below have given correct finding of title and possession of the suit property and as such there can be interference with these concurrent findings in the present proceedings. There is no substantial question of law whatsoever arising for consideration of this court. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]