1 sa210.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.210/2025 Rajesh S/o Sevakram Kshirsagar ..V/s.. The Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. D.C. Chahande, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. S.C. Joshi, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1, 4 to 6. Mr. N.G. Jetha, Counsel for respondent No.3. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J. DATED : 15.9.2026. Heard. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff. The suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that his grandfather has donated the land bearing Survey No.24, admeasuring 0.56 H.R, Rev.2.45, Occupancy Right Class-II, situated at Mouza Gavana within the jurisdiction Gat-Grampanchayat Gavana (Garanda), Tah. Parseoni, District Nagpur. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was purchased by Mahadeo Kshirsagar, his grandfather, by registered sale deed on 07.05.1940. Mahadeo Kshirsagar died on 11.06.1982. The plaintiff is the grand son of Mahadeo Kshirsagar. The plaintiff came to know on 19.06.2009 that defendant No.5 Taluka Inspector of Land Records has done demarcation of the suit property without notice to him. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that Bhudan Patta granted and subsequent measurement of the suit land made by defendant No.2 is 2026:BHC-NAG:12378 2 sa210.2025 illegal. The Mutation Entry No.52 dated 25.04.1996 certified the name of defendant No.3 to the revenue record of the suit property in pursuance of Bhudan Patta granted to him. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.5 do not have authority to demarcate and measure the suit property and said act of defendant No.5 is illegal and bad in law. Issues were framed by the trial Court. It is observed by the trial Court that the suit property is self-acquired property and it was transferred to defendant No.3 on 26.03.1996 by the grandfather of the plaintiff who died on 11.06.1982. The trial Court has rightly observed that the transfer of this property is governed by Madhya Pradesh Bhudan Yagna Act, 1953. The grandfather of the plaintiff had a right to transfer property which was self-acquired property. As per the provisions of Section 19 of said Act, the donation is treated as ‘irrevocable gift’ and it is not an irreversible transfer. The plaintiff has no right or proprietary to challenge the same. The plaintiff’s claim over the suit property is false as he does not have a right to possess the property after the transfer to Bhudan Yadhnya Mandal. The plaintiff has no right in said property and the suit was dismissed. The appeal was filed which was dismissed by the Appellate Court by making similar observations. 3. The appellant has filed this second appeal and for the first time raised the issue that the person who has acquired the land under Bhudan Yadhnya was not authorized person. The said issue was not raised before the trial Court or the Appellate Court. Therefore, the 3 sa210.2025 appellant cannot raise this issue for the first time before this Court, that too in second appeal. There is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal as the property which was acquired by the grandfather of the appellant was self-acquired property. The observations made by the trial Court and the Appellate Court do not warrant interference at the hands of this Court. As there is no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal, the same stands dismissed. (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) Tambaskar. Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 17/09/2026 16:50:45