JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties at length.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Parbhani in RCA No. 13 of 2017 the appellants have filed this Second Appeal. The learned Appellate Judge by way of impugned judgment has dismissed the appeal with costs. The appeal was filed challenging the decree passed by the learned C.J.S.D., Gangakhed, dated 15.01.2016 in RCS No. 124 of 2013.

3. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed a suit against the present appellant Zilla Parishad and respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who are the Grampanchyat, Gram Sevak and the Chairman of the Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society, Rampuri (Bk.), Tq.Manwath, District; Parbhani (for short “VKS Society”). Respondent No. 3 is the State of Maharashtra, through the Collector. The suit was filed claiming recovery of possession of land, perpetual injunction and in alternative for direction to the defendants to initiate the acquisition proceedings in respect of suit land Gut No. 1, ad-measuring 1 H, 02 R of Village Rampuri (Bk.), Tq. Manwath, Tq. Parbhani. (Hereinafter the parties are referred as per their original status in the suit.)

4. The plaintiffs have filed a suit on the basis of title to the suit land. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in the year 1964-65 the defendant, Zilla Parishad, took possession of the land for construction of a dispensary and for a Primary Health Center and also for constructing quarters to its employees, Grampanchyat Office, Society Office and also for Godown. It was assured that the Zilla Parishad would start the acquisition proceedings and the compensation would be paid to the plaintiffs. However, inspite of various demands and attempts, no acquisition proceeding was started therefore ultimately a notice was issued to handover the possession. Since, no heed was paid to the said notice, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit.

5. It is the case of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 that the land was purchased for an amount of Rs. 914/- in the year 1966. There are entries in the Revenue Record showing the names of Grampanchyat, Zilla Parishad and defendant No. 4 i.e. the VKS Society. The entries appeared in the 7/12 extract as well as in the City Survey record. The names of the plaintiffs, however, does appear in 7/12 extract as the owner and possessor of the suit land. The plaintiffs had also issued notices under Section 18 of the Act to the defendants on 2.12.2009. Lastly, a request was made on 25.03.2013 for vacating the suit land and to initiate acquisition proceedings. The defendants have denied even the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land.

6. The learned trial Court framed issues about the title and status of the construction by defendant Nos. 2 to 4 over the suit land, which are as below :

(a) Whether defendant No. 3 has proved that the land is purchased from plaintiffs, i.e. from the father of the plaintiffs namely Tukaram Yadav ?

(b) Whether the defendants were handed over the possession for construction of Primary Health Center in 1970 ?

(c) Whether the suit is within the limitation ?

(d) Whether the suit is not maintainable for want previous notice under Section 180 of the Bombay Village Panchyat Act and Section 280 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchyat Samities Act, etc.?

7. The parties have laid the evidence in their support.

8. The plaintiffs have relied upon the documents i.e. ‘Sanad’ issued by DILR, a copy of notice issued to the respondents, a copy of postal receipt, a copy of acknowledgment of the receipt of notice by the defendants, 7/12 extract of the land Gut No. 1 and a copy of map of Gut No. 1, issued by the Office of DILR.

9. The defendant Zilla Parishad has relied upon the revenue entries showing the possession of the Zilla Parishad as owner of the land.

10. The learned trial Judge after going through the evidence and after considering the legal position was pleased to decree the suit with costs and directed the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 to hand over the vacant poss