JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Legal repusentatives of Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 are the Appellants in this second appeal against a confirming judgment. 2. Plaintiff's case is that in the year 1962, be obtained a lease of plot No. 122 in Laxmisagar of Budheswari area in Bhubaneswar town. Plot No. 129 which is a Government land is situated to the North-East of Plot No. 122. Defendants are the owners of plot No. 16 to the North of 'Plaintiff's plot. There is a strip of land lying between Plaintiff's plot and Defendants' plot on one side ana plot Nos. 129 and 130 on the other which is a conservancy lane. Plaintiff and the Defendants have constructed their buildings on their respective plots. The conservancy lane which was being used by the Plaintiff has been obstructed by the Defendants and the dirty water from Plaintiffs' plot was not being discharged on account of the encroachment by the defend ants. Defendants have also constructed a wall appertaining to the boundary wall of the Plaintiff over plot No. 129 as a result of which the right of user of the suit land as conservancy lane has been impaired. 3. Case of the Defendants is that there is no conservancy lane as alleged by the Plaintiff and in an encroachment case started against Defendant. No: 1 he has claimed that be has acquired title by adverse possession over the disputed land. 4. Trial Court and the appellate Court having accepted the case of the Plaintiff about the existence of conservancy lane and obstruction by Defendants; have decreed the suit directing removal of the obstruction for enjoyment of the conservancy lane. 5. While formulating the substantial questions of law involved in the Second Appeal as required u/s 100 CPC it has been observed that ground Nos. 3, 4,5, 7 and 8 raise substantial questions of law. These grounds in the memorandum of appeal read as follows: 3. For that in the proceeding started under the aforesaid Act, the question to be decided is as to whether the Defendants had enclosed upon the Government land and if they had acquired right by remaining in adverse possession for the requisite period. The self-same question is also involved in this suit and as such the suit was not maintainable in Civil Court. 4. The self-same question is also involved in this suit and as such the suit was not maintainable in Civil Court. 4. For that Plaintiff having not acquired any right of easement to use the disputed land as conservancy land the Courts below should have dismissed the suit as not maintainable. 5. For that the lease in favour of the Plaintiff being, of the year 1962, the Plaintiff should not have acquired any right of easement by the time, the suit was filed and as such the suit should have been dismissed. 6. x x x 7. For that the Plaintiff was claiming the right of using the disputed land as conservancy land and as such, it was the duty of the Plaintiff to take out the Civil Court Commissioner to demarcate the disputed land. 8. For that the observation of the lower appellate Court is that except the question relating to applicability of Section 14 of the 'Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupancy) Act, no other question was raised as not correct and as would be evident from the memorandum of appeal, the judgment of the trial Court was impugned on other grounds as well 6. Mr. P. K. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the observation of the first appellate Court that except the question relating to applicability of Section 14 of the Orissa Public Premisses (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act no other question was raised before that Court is not correct. It is not settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Another and of this Court in the decision reported in Rama Santra and Ors. v. Rani Soudamini Manjari Devi after her Bibhuti Bhusan Singh and Ors. 28 (1962) C.L.T. 83, that facts recorded in judicial proceedings are to be accepted as correct and cannot be questioned in higher forum. In case of any mistake, the same is to be brought to the notice of the same Presiding Officer who recorded the same. In State of Maharashtra v, Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Anr. (supra) it was observed in paragraph 4 ;-"... We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in Court. In State of Maharashtra v, Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Anr. (supra) it was observed in paragraph 4 ;-"... We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in Court. We cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the Judges say in their judgment that" something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well-settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the Court are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error (Par Lord Buckmaster in Madhusudan v. Chandrabati, AIR 1917 P C. 30). This is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an Appellate Court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment." The earlier decision of this Court and the decision of the Supreme Court have been followed by a Division Bench later in the decision reported in Shyama Sundar Pani v. Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack and Ors. 59 (1985) C. L T. 401. Applying the aforesaid principle, I am not inclined to permit Mr. Mishra to urge that the statement in the appellate judgment to the effect that the Appellants urged only One point is not correct statement of fact. 7. 59 (1985) C. L T. 401. Applying the aforesaid principle, I am not inclined to permit Mr. Mishra to urge that the statement in the appellate judgment to the effect that the Appellants urged only One point is not correct statement of fact. 7. As regards the proceeding under the Special Act with regard to eviction, the case of the Appellants is that they have been in long possession as of right and title of the State Government has been extinguished. Admittedly, the conservancy lane is a Government land. Plaintiff does not claim title to the land. He only claims user of the same as conservancy lane and discharge of duty water. Even if the Appellants would be successful in the proceeding under the said Act, right of the Plaintiff cannot be defeated under that Act since the same is not a subject matter of enquiry in the proceeding under the Special Act. Thus, the suit as is framed cannot be said to be affected by Section 14 thereof as urged. 8. As regards the other two grounds, it has been found as fact to the effect that the conservancy lane was in existence which was being used by the plain tiff. Mr. Misra faced wish this difficulty submitted that Courts should not have decreed the suit as prayed for but should have examined the extent of land that would be necessary for convenient enjoyment of the conservancy lane and discharge of dirty water. There is substance in the submission of Mr. Misra. Therefore, the decree for permanent injunction is to be modified. In case the boundary wall obstructs the discharge of dirty water and other user as conservancy lane, the obstruction to the extent of convenient user of the conservancy lane shall be removed. The entire wall may not be necessary to be removed in case removal of a part of the boundary wall would be sufficient for the Plaintiff to conveniently use the conservancy lane. The entire wall may not be necessary to be removed in case removal of a part of the boundary wall would be sufficient for the Plaintiff to conveniently use the conservancy lane. Accordingly, the Defendant's are directed to make provision for making it convenient for the Plaintiff within three months to use the conservancy lane and discharge of dirty water from his plot No. 122, failing which the Plaintiff can apply for execution of the decree and the Executing Court shall depute a Commissioner to find out the-exact portion of the boundary wall to be removed for the purpose of convenient use of the conservancy lane. In case a hole in the boundary wall would not' be inconvenient, the boundary wall need not be demolished. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. In the peculiar circumstances, parties shall bear their own' costs throughout. Final Result : Allowed