JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J.-The dispute relates to 5 decimals land of Plot No. 2527 appertaining to Khata No. 91 situated in village Govindpur. 2. Plot No. 2527, having total area of 36.75 acres, stood recorded in Khatiyan as Gairmazarua land. 3. Estate Officer of Damodar Valley Corporation, Bokaro Thermal Power Station, issued notice dated 6.1.1989 to Arvind Kumar, son of Late Damodar Thakur, a resident of Darnodar Valley Corporation Market to appear on 20.1.1989 and show cause why his house constructed over the said 5 decimals land be not removed. 4. Arvind Kumar filed Title Suit No. 1 of 1989 against Damodar Valley Corporation for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction over the said 5 decimals land. 5. Plaintiff's case was that his father Damodar Thakur had obtained raiyati settlement of the suit land from the then landlord, Rajmata Rikhinath Kuwari through Hukumnama dated 23.5.1946 (Exhibit 3) and came in possession thereof. He started construction of residential house thereon, but died without completing it. However, thereafter plaintiff completed construction and spent about Rs. 60,000/- thereon and was living therein with his family members. 6. Subsequently plaintiff got the plaint amended and also claimed alternatively to have acquired title over the suit land by adverse possession. 7. Defendants filed written statement and contested the suit. According to them entire land of plot No. 2527 alongwith other lands were acquired by State Government for Damodar Valley Corporation under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act in the year 1949. Declaration under section 6 of the said Act was notified on 26.10.1946 and on 11.12.1949 possession thereof was delivered to the Executive Engineer, Bokaro Thermal Power Station. A map (Exhibit A) was also prepared for the entire lands acquired by Damodar Valley Corporation. No objection by any one, including, plaintiff's father, Damodar Thakur was raised in respect .of the suit land or any other part of Plot No. 2527. Damodar Valley Corporation fenced its lands. However, some lands are still beyond the fencing. 8. In exercise of powers under section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, Senior Divisional Engineer (Civil), Colony Division, Damodar Valley Corporation, Bokaro, the Estate Officer issued notice to the plaintiff to remove construction from the suit land and hand over vacant possession thereof to Damodar Valley Corporation. 9. 8. In exercise of powers under section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, Senior Divisional Engineer (Civil), Colony Division, Damodar Valley Corporation, Bokaro, the Estate Officer issued notice to the plaintiff to remove construction from the suit land and hand over vacant possession thereof to Damodar Valley Corporation. 9. Plaintiff produced Hukumnama (Exhibit 3) and rent receipts (Exhibits 1 series) issued by, the ex-intermediary till vesting of Zamindari in the State on receiving rent for the suit land from him. 10. A report of the Amin dated 20.5.1946 was also brought on record and marked Exhibit 2 in respect of the suit land settled with the plaintiff's father by the ex-intermediary and was marked as Plot No. 2527/1. 11. Plaintiff also examined witnesses in support of his case. P.W. 2 stated that the suit land over which plaintiff had constructed his house about twenty years ago was out-side the fencing put by Damodar Valley Corporation after acquisition of lands for it. P.W. 3 also corroborated the evidence of P.W. 2 and supported plaintiff's case. 12. On the other hand, on behalf of defendant Damodar Valley Corporation details of acquisition of lands including Plot No. 2527, viz. Notification under Section 4, declaration under Section 6, awards prepared therefor, payment of compensation made to the landholders, whose lands were acquired, and report of delivery of possession were not brought on record. 13. According to plaintiff, his father obtained the suit land in raiyati settlement in the year 1946, whereas acquisition of lands for Damodar Valley Corporation was made in the year 1949. It was, therefore, incumbent upon defendant-Corporation to establish that actually the suit land was also acquired and for that compensation was paid to its owner. 14. On behalf of the Corporation, a map (Exhibit A) was produced, which was a copy of the original map and was prepared on 20.2.1970. Even the only witness (D. W. 1) examined on behalf of defendant was not competent. He was a Taied who had no knowledge about the disputes between the parties. The said witness tried to prove the map (Exhibit A), which was not the original, but a copy prepared in 1970. 15. Defendant-Corporation in the aforesaid circumstance miserably failed to prove that the suit land was also acquired for it in the year 1946 and it came in possession thereof. 16. The said witness tried to prove the map (Exhibit A), which was not the original, but a copy prepared in 1970. 15. Defendant-Corporation in the aforesaid circumstance miserably failed to prove that the suit land was also acquired for it in the year 1946 and it came in possession thereof. 16. Even if the suit land was acquired, the Corporation does not appear to have come in possession over it at any time and even did not take any step against plaintiff or his father, who had constructed a house thereon some time in Seventy's. For the first time in the year 1969, Estate Officer of the Corporation issued notice to the plaintiff under the provision of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and thereafter immediately the present suit was filed. 17. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. There is no merit in this Appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed, but without costs. Lower court records may be sent down.