JUDGMENT : D.M. Patnaik, J. - This second appeal is at the instance of the Plaintiff who has lost the suit in both the courts below. The suit was filed for recovery of the' area mentioned in the schedule of the plaint measuring 30 feet in width, 56 feet in length on one side and 61 feet in length on the other side, total measuring Ac. 0.12/16 cents. This area was under the wrongful possession of the Defendant whose land lies to the adjacent east of the land of the Plaintiff. Both the courts below decreed the Plaintiff's suit in part by holding that the Defendant is found to be in forcible possession of 1'.7' feet in width and 61 feet in length. The Plaintiff being aggrieved with the part-decree filed the second appeal. The Defendant preferred a cross-objection which has been also dismissed. Against this, the Defendant has also challenged the dismissal of the cross-objection. 2. Heard Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. M.K. C. Rao, learned Counsel for the Respondent. I have perused the judgments of the courts below and the materials on record particularly the Amin's report. It is strenuously urged by Mr. Padhi that the Amin's report is found to be defective inasmuch as the Amin did not take a fixed point before measuring the land in question and that is the reason for which the Amin'sreport should not have been accepted by the court's below. The same argument was advanced by Mr. Rao so far as his case for the land in question is concerned. After going through the Amin's report I do not find there is any defect in it. Both the courts below having taken into consideration the Amin's report have given a concurrent finding that the Defendant is wrongfully in possession of 1'.7' feet in width and 61' feet in length. This being the concurrent finding of fact I am not inclined to interfere with the judgments of the courts below. 3. Admittedly both the parties have purchased their respective areas each having the land 30' feet in width from out of the whole plot. It is also not disputed that they are in possession of their respective portion except the portion in dispute. 3. Admittedly both the parties have purchased their respective areas each having the land 30' feet in width from out of the whole plot. It is also not disputed that they are in possession of their respective portion except the portion in dispute. In view of this, nothing has been substantially brought out during the course of the argument by the learned Counsel for the parties so as to disturb the finding of both the courts below. Therefore,the second appeal and the cross-objection are disposed of without interfering with the finding, without cost. 4. But at one point of time, Mr. Rao, the learned Counsel for the Defendant, submitted that, since there is a building standing on the encroached portion of the land, it will not be equitable for the court to direct recovery of possession by demolishing the house standing on it This fact of Defendant's having a building over the disputed land, is strongly denied by Mr. Padhi and it is further submitted that at the time of filing the suit there was no building over the plot. Be that as it may, admittedly it has been proved that the Defendant without any authority has possessed the area in question that belonged to the Plaintiff. It has not been brought out by the Plaintiff by any material that any serious prejudice will be caused to her if she is not delivered possession in respect of this small area, though Mr. Padhi submits that in any case the Plaintiff should be given delivery of possession of the decreed area since, according to Mr. Padhi, a trespasser is not entitled to any equity under law. 5. Considering the respective contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I feel that equity and ends of justice would be best served if, instead of giving delivery of possession to the Plaintiff the area of 1'.7" feet in width and 61' feet in length as per the decree, a sum of Rs. 15.000/- be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as compensation for wrongful possession of the land. This amount is fixed taking into account the present market price as stated by Mr. Padhi. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The lower court judgments are confirmed. But however in view of my decision above, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. This amount is fixed taking into account the present market price as stated by Mr. Padhi. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The lower court judgments are confirmed. But however in view of my decision above, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. 15.000/- towards compensation of the land within a period of three months from today. If the Defendant fails to pay the amount by 19-6-1999 the Plaintiff will be at liberty to execute the decree and take delivery of possession as per law. There shall be no execution, if the amount is paid in time. No cost. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed