1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 165 of 2007 Dadarao Shamrao Raut Vs. Commissioner Amravati & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri C. S. Pultamkar Adv. for appellant. Shri M. P. Maloo Adv. for respondents. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 11 th April, 2008. Heard Shri Pultamkar learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Maloo learned counsel for respondent No.5. This appeal has been preferred by the original plaintiff who had instituted a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of site which abuts his house. It was the 2 contention of the plaintiff that he was the owner of the suit site. Revenue Authorities i.e. defendants 1 to 4 found that site belongs to the Government. It therefore directed the plaintiff to remove the encroachment. Against that order the plaintiff had preferred an appeal before Additional Collector and even before Additional Commissioner. Both the appeals were rejected by both the authorities and the order as passed in Revenue Case No. 30/LEN-30/95-96 was confirmed by both the authorities. The last order was passed by the Additional Commissioner on 12.08.97. It is thereafter that this suit was instituted by the plaintiff for seeking declaration and injunction. In the said suit the defendant had moved and application that plaint is liable to be rejected on account of the fact that suit 3 was barred by limitation. Learned Judge of the trial Court framed a preliminary issue as to whether the suit was barred by limitation. He found that the suit was barred by limitation since the suit was not filed within one year from the date of the order of the Commissioner as contemplated by Section 20 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Holding so he in fact rejected the plaint although he has used the word dismissed the suit. Against this order the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge. Additional District Judge concurred with the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Against this judgment and decree this second appeal is preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is in possession of the suit property for a long period. The 4 question as to whether the appellant was or is not in possession of the suit site is immaterial. It has been held that the plaintiff is encroacher and he was directed to remove the encroachment. He was therefore required to file suit within the period of one year. The suit was not admittedly filed within one year as contemplated by Section 20 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. There is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE svk