JUDGMENT S.K. Dubey, J. 1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit instituted by plaintiff Dharam (since dead) for declaration of title, for restoration of possession and for mesne profits. 2. The plaintiff averred in his plaint that by a Patta (Ext.P-2) the suit land bearing Survey No. 870/1, area 3 acres, 10 decimals, situated in village Semaha, Tahsil Bhander, was given to him by the Tahsil Court and since then he is continuing in possession; the revenue entries in respect of this land in the name of the defendant are collusive and convey no title to the defendant, on the fact of the Patta granted to the plaintiff; on the basis of the entry of the defendant in the revenue records, the defendants forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff. The appellant/defendant denied the plaint allegations and claimed his possession over 1 Bigha 10 Biswa of land since Samvat 2010 and also averred that the lease in favour of the plaintiff is a forgery. The trial Court after recording of evidence held that Ext.P-2 is a forged document and dismissed the suit. In appeal, the lower appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court, and decreed the suit, holding that the Patta (Ext.P-2) exists in favour of the plaintiff; the defendant has not led any evidence to demonstrate how the Patta is a forged document, even the appellant Diman has not stated on oath in his statement about the Patta being a forged one. The appellant and his witnesses only stated that they are not aware of any Patta being granted to the plaintiff; merely on the basis of the fact that demarcation of the land leased to the plaintiff was not made, neither the Patta can be said to be a forged document nor the suit can be dismissed. The lower appellate Court after appreciating the evidence also held that plaintiff Dharam was in possession and was later, in Samvat 2026, dispossessed by the appellant, who continued in possession as a trespasser on one acre of land, which is proved not only by oral evidence but by documentary evidence - revenue entries, also. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed with mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 150/- per year from Samvat 2026 till the date of delivery of possession. It is this judgment and decree which has been challenged in this appeal. 3. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed with mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 150/- per year from Samvat 2026 till the date of delivery of possession. It is this judgment and decree which has been challenged in this appeal. 3. Shri B. S. Agrawal, counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on an unreported decision in First Appeal No. 14\1973, decided on 30-11-1979, Hardeosingh (Dead) through L.Rs. Mst. Fula Bai and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh through Collector, District Morena, contended that in view of Notification No. 195-6477-VII-N (Rules) dated 6th January 1960, published in M. P. Government Gazette dated 22nd January 1962, a Patta cannot be granted unless the possession of the land is taken and the land is unoccupied land. Counsel also contended that to prove the Patta, burden lay upon the plaintiff and that having not been discharged, the Patta cannot be said to be proved and on that basis no decree can be granted. 4. In my opinion, both contentions have no merit, as Shri M. L. Gupta, counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, rightly contended that the lower appellate Court has arrived at a finding of fact that when Patta (Ext.P-2) was granted to the plaintiff, the land was unoccupied land and the plaintiff was put in possession, but the defendant/appellant encroached upon the land thereafter; therefore, though the plea of applicability of the Notification was not raised, neither the Notification nor the judgment passed in F. A. No. 14/1973, Hardeo Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. Mst. Fula Bai and Ors. v. State (supra), has ny application in the facts of the case. The Patta (Ext.P-2) was granted by the Court of Naib Tahsildar, Bhander, in case No. 612/62 X 162 to the respondent on 17-10-1962. Therefore, the Patta being a public document and produced and proved by the plaintiff, was rightly admitted in evidence, and if the appellant wanted to prove the Patta to be a forged document, he ought to have adduced cogent and legal evidence, but the appellant failed to discharge the burden which lay upon him. 5. During the course of dictation of this judgment, Shri Agrawal further submitted that there is a finding of the lower appellate Court that in Samvat 2019 the appellant was in possession and, therefore, the Notification fully applies. 5. During the course of dictation of this judgment, Shri Agrawal further submitted that there is a finding of the lower appellate Court that in Samvat 2019 the appellant was in possession and, therefore, the Notification fully applies. This contention has also no merit, as Under Section 248 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short the 'Code'), any land, which has been set apart for any special purpose Under Section 237 of the Code or which is the property of the Government, upon which an encroachment has been made, is treated to be an unoccupied land. As the land, admittedly, was owned by the State Government and encroachment was made thereupon by the appellant, the land certainly fell in the category of 'unoccupied land', which has been defined Under Section 2(l)(z-3) of the Act and means "the land in a village other than the Abadi or service land or the land held by a Bhumiswami, a tenant or a Government lessee". Even if it is assumed for argument's sake that the appellant was in possession, admittedly, the appellant was not a Bhumiswami or a tenant or a Government lessee prior to the grant of Patta to the plaintiff. It is settled that the land occupied by a Bhumiswami, as defined in Section 158 of the Code, or a tenant, or a Government lessee, as defined in Section 181 of the Code, is not 'unoccupied land' but is 'occupied land'. But, if the land is occupied by a person without the authority of law, it does not become occupied land, it remains unoccupied land in the eye of law. [See Panchamsingh v. Mahant Ramkrishnadas, 1971 MPLJ 745 , 1971 JLJ 588 (D.B.)]. Unless a party proves that at any time he was in lawful possession or his possession being a settled one, he cannot claim protection of his possession. Admittedly, the land belonged to the State; the appellant did not acquire possession lawfully; hence, in view of the settled position of law, the possession being not lawful and that of a trespasser, the land was unoccupied land, and, therefore, it cannot be held that Patta was not legally granted to the respondent of the land, which in the eye of law was an 'unoccupied land,' but, factually, was in possession of the appellant as a trespasser. Therefore, the contention of Shri Agrawal that the appellant was in possession and, as such, the land was not an 'unoccupied land' has no merit. 6. Lastly, Shri Agrawal contended that the lower appellate Court illegally granted mesne profits for which no evidence, except his own statement, was led by the plaintiff. Shri Gupta, counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, to put an end to this long litigation, submitted that as the possession has been taken in pursuance of the decree passed by the lower appellate Court on 5-3-1976, of the suit land, which is evident from the order sheet dated 24-9-1976 of this Court, the respondent/plaintiff foregoes the claim of mesne profits. 7. In the result, the appeal is devoid of any substance and is dismissed with a direction that in view of the concession given by the counsel for the respondent, the respondent/plaintiff shall not be entitled to realise any mesne profits. In the circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs of this appeal.