Short Note : 1. The defendant-appellant was in possession of the disputed land on the basis of the lease deeds Ex. P-1 and D-1. This was an agricultural land and was leased out to the defendant for construction of the house. It is undisputed that the defendant had constructed a house. Later on the Government started diversion proceedings and realised diversion charges from the plaintiff. The defendant had disputed his liability to pay the diversion charges to the plaintiff, on the ground that there was no stipulation to that effect in the lease deeds, Ex. P-1 and D-1 and that the plaintiff did not bring to his notice the diversion proceedings. Held : It is undisputed that the land over which the defendant has raised the construction was an agricultural land. The defendant has taken the land on lease and constructed a house and has thus derived the benefit himself. It was not necessary that the defendant should have been made a party to the diversion proceedings. Since the diversion charges have been levied after the execution of Exs. D-1 and P-1, any subsequent burden cannot be fastened on plaintiff. More so when the lease was to the benefit of the defendant. Shingounda Shidgounda v. Ganesh Yeshwant and others, AIR 1956 Bombay 243, Ladhuram Manormal Marwadi v. Sale Mohamed Illiyas Memon, AIR 1925 Bombay 168 relied on. Appeal dismissed.