JUDGMENT V.N. Khare, J. - This Second appeal arises out of suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for injunction restraining the defendants from evicting him from the land in dispute described by letters 'B', 'C', 'G' 'F' comprising in plot no. 1178 situate in Mauza Kouch, Pargana Konch, District Jalaun. 2. The case of the plaintiff-appellant as alleged in the plaint was that he and his ancestor have been in possession over the land in dispute for the last about 100 years. The plaintiff-appellant and his ancestor Guru Bhanwar Gulzar Shah were grove holders and rent free grantee of plot no. 1178. The land in dispute is the part of the plaintiff's land measuring 4.18 acres. The land in dispute does not belong to the Central Government and is not a public premises within the meaning of public premises (Eviction of the Unauthorised Occupants) Act No. 32 of 1958, that the defendant no. 1 had no jurisdiction to take proceedings under the Act No. 32 of 1958. The order passed for his eviction is without jurisdiction. The case of defendant was that the land was acquired for the Railway Department in the year 1903 under the Land Acquisition Act and since then the Railway Department had been in possession over the said land. The plaintiff had made unauthorised encroachment over it. In fact the defendants themselves are the a owners of the land in dispute. The Trial Court framed various issues. While dealing issues nos. 1 and 3 the Trial Court held that the plaintiff is not the owner of the land in dispute and in fact it is the Central Railway which is the owner of the land as they acquired the said land under the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1903. On appeal the learned District Judge, Jalaun dismissed the appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the finding recorded by both the courts that the land belonged to Central Railways is erroneous inasmuch as the defendants failed to prove their title. In the present case defendants filed Khatauni of the year 1342 fasli and 1358 fasli, Exs. A7 and A8 wherein the land in dispute was recorded in the name of the Central Government. Moreover, the documents filed by the defendants show that the land in dispute adjoins the Railway line. In the present case defendants filed Khatauni of the year 1342 fasli and 1358 fasli, Exs. A7 and A8 wherein the land in dispute was recorded in the name of the Central Government. Moreover, the documents filed by the defendants show that the land in dispute adjoins the Railway line. The plaintiff-appellant in his statement admitted that certain portion of the land was acquired by the Central Railway for the Railways. In view of all these evidence both the courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that land in dispute, in fact, belongs to the Central Government and the plaintiff has no title over it. This finding is a finding of fact and is not open to the appellant to challenge in the second appeal. It has not been shown to me that there is any legal infirmity in the finding recorded by both the Courts. 4. In view of above there is no merit in this second appeal. It is accordingly dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.