Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, vide which the respondents have been granted mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 4,90,000/- per month for the land measuring 31 Kanals 3 Marias, which was illegally occupied by appellant-Corporation. 2. The State of Punjab acquired the suit land in excess of the area for which notification dated 12.6.1989 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. However, the possession of the same was taken in the year 1990. The suit land belonged to the plaintiff-respondents. They raised objection before the authorities concerned for occupying the excess area measuring 31 Kanals and 3 Marias than the area legally acquired by them. On demarcation by the Field Kanungo on 5.5.1995, it revealed that the appellant-Corporation was in occupation of the suit land in excess of the area acquired by the State of Punjab. When the plaintiff-respondents were not compensated for the excess area acquired by the State, they filed the present suit on 4.1.1997. Notice was issued to the defendants-State of Punjab and the Punjab Small Scale Industries Corporation (appellant herein). The suit was contested and the defendants took up the plea that they were not in possession of the excess area. On the pleadings of the parties, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the land in dispute measuring 31 Kanals 3 Marias? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the possession of the said land? OPP 2A. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 2B. Whether a legal valid notice Under Section 80 CPC was served before institution of the suit? OPP. 3. Relief. On examining the evidence adduced on record by both the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.11.2002 found that the defendants were in occupation of 31 Kanals and 3 Marias of land belonging to the plaintiffs in excess of the acquisition legally made. The trial Court relied on the agreement dated 20.6.1990 (Ex.PW1/1) with regard to the leasing out of a land measuring 10 Marias, which was adjacent to the land in question, and accordingly, vide judgment and decree dated 16.11.2002 granted mesne profits to the plaintiff-respondents at the rate of Rs. The trial Court relied on the agreement dated 20.6.1990 (Ex.PW1/1) with regard to the leasing out of a land measuring 10 Marias, which was adjacent to the land in question, and accordingly, vide judgment and decree dated 16.11.2002 granted mesne profits to the plaintiff-respondents at the rate of Rs. 4,90,000/- per month with effect from 4.1.1994 till the possession of the suit land is restored to the plaintiffs. Consequently, the plaintiff-respondents were held entitled for the recovery of Rs. 1,76,40,000/-. The State of Punjab as well as the Punjab Small Scale Industries Corporation (for short the Corporation) filed separate appeals, which were returned by the District Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment and decree dated 2.9.2003, as under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC he had no pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed with the appeals. In the present appeal the Corporation has impugned the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar. The judgment and decree dated 2.9.2003 passed by the District Judge, Jalandhar (Annexure P2) has been challenged in Civil Revision No. 65 of 2004. As the appeal as well as the civil revision relate to the same subject-matter, they are being decided by a common judgment. 3 The primary attack of Mr. Govind Goel, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation, is that the trial Court has erred while granting mesne profits at a huge rate of Rs. 4,90,000/- per month when there was no issue with regard to the grant of mesne profits. He contended that no opportunity was given to the defendants to argue on the issue of mesne profits, which were determined while placing reliance on the agreement dated 20.6.1990 (Ex.PWl/1). In order to prove the agreement (Ex.PWl/1) neither the lessor nor the lessee has been produced. It has further been contended by Mr. Goel that the said agreement dated 20.6.1990 was with regard to the leasing out of a small area measuring 10 Marias only. The agreement which relates to a small chunk of land. Ought not be relied upon for determining mesne profits for a big chunk of land measuring 31 Kanals 3 Marias. Moreover, he contends that the agreement dated 20.6.1990 (Ex.PWl/1) related to a developed area, whereas the suit land was undeveloped. On this basis it has been contended that at least one-half cut in the rate of mesne profits is required to be imposed. Moreover, he contends that the agreement dated 20.6.1990 (Ex.PWl/1) related to a developed area, whereas the suit land was undeveloped. On this basis it has been contended that at least one-half cut in the rate of mesne profits is required to be imposed. It has further been contended that the suit was barred by time. For condonation of delay, the defendant-respondents have not filed any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 . Lastly, it has been contended by Mr. Govind Goel that the matter be remanded to the Land Acquisition Collector for determination of compensation which is required to be paid to the respondents with regard to the suit land. In support of his contention the counsel has placed reliance on R.L. Jain (D) by L.Rs. v. D.D.A. and Ors., J.T. 2004(3) S.C. 272; and Smt. Basavva and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors., A.I.R. 1996 Supreme Court 3168. 4. Mr. Harsh Bunger, learned counsel for the respondents, has controverted the contentions raised by Mr. Govind Goel. It has been contended by him that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was mainly for grant of mesne profits. He further contends that though no issue was framed to that effect, even then the Court was competent to determine the mesne profits by way of granting compensation to the aggrieved party. In order to rebut the contention raised by Mr. Goel with regard to placing of reliance on the agreement dated 20.6.1990 (Ex.PW1/1), it has been contended by him that the said agreement related to the area which was contiguous to the suit land. Thus, he contends that the trial Court had rightly placed reliance on the same. It has been contended by him that suit land had a high potential value for setting up industry as it was contiguous to the Industrial Focal Point. In support of his contention, the counsel has placed reliance on Narayanarao (dead) through L.Rs and Ors. v. Sudarshan, 1995 Supp(4) Supreme Court Cases 463; Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Ltd. v. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. and Anr., (1999)2 Supreme Court Cases 325; and Lucy Kochuvareed v. P. Mariappa Gounder and Ors., (1979)3 Supreme Court Cases 150. 5. It is an admitted fact that the suit land measuring 31 Kanals 3 Marias belong to the respondents had been taken possession of by State Government despite the fact it had not been acquired. 5. It is an admitted fact that the suit land measuring 31 Kanals 3 Marias belong to the respondents had been taken possession of by State Government despite the fact it had not been acquired. The only dispute is with regard to the determination of quantum of mesne profits to be paid to the plaintiff-respondents. The Trial Court, as already mentioned above, placed reliance on the agreement dated 20.6.1990 (Ex.PW1/1) regarding leasing out of the land measuring 10 Marias, which was adjacent to the land in question and fixed the rate of mesne profits to be paid to the respondents on that basis. The objection raised by Mr. Govind Goel, learned counsel for the appellants with regard to the determination of quantum of mesne profits despite the fact there being no issue with respect thereto has no relevance at all keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case. In Lucy Kochuvareeds case (supra) it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that a person in wrongful possession of land is liable to pay mesne profits to the owner thereof. In Narayanaraos case (supra) it was held by Hon ble Supreme Court that in order to do justice between the parties the High Court had rightly invoked the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33, CPC and granted mesne profits to the aggrieved party in spite of the fact no issue with regard thereto had been framed by the trial Court. 6. The primary question that survives for consideration is the quantum of mesne profits. Mr. Govind Goel, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the agreement dated 20.6.1990 (Ex.PW1/1) ought not be relied upon owing to its smallness in comparison to the suit land. The said agreement is for 10 Marias of land, whereas the suit land measure 31 Kanals 3 Marias. Though the agreement dated 20.6.1990 is much smaller as compared to the suit land, but this evidence cannot be completely ignored keeping in view the fact the State had failed to adduce any sale instance or lease deed in order to assist the Court in determining the quantum of mesne profits. As already said above, the said area measuring 10 Marias had been leased out in the year 1990, i.e. when the suit land had been illegally occupied by the State. This land is contiguous to the suit land. As already said above, the said area measuring 10 Marias had been leased out in the year 1990, i.e. when the suit land had been illegally occupied by the State. This land is contiguous to the suit land. There is no dispute with regard to these facts. This fact also cannot be ignored that suit land, which remained in unauthorised possession of the defendants,has got a great potential for setting up industry. Keeping in view the said fact, the trial Court determined the quantum of mesne profits to be paid to the respondents on the basis of the agreement dated 20.6.1990 (Ex.PW1/1). However, the objection of Mr. Govind Goel with regard its smallness as compared to the suit land as well as the fact that it was a developed site, are the points which are worth consideration. Mr. Goel has suggested that one half cut on the quantum determined by the trial Court should be applied. It do not agree to his suggestion. For doing justice to both the parties. I am of the considered opinion that one third cut in the quantum of mesne profits determined by the trial Court would be a fair decision. By applying one third cut, the respondents would be entitled to get mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 3,27,000/- per month. 7. Consequently, I determine the rate of mesne profits to be paid to the respondents at Rs. 3,27,000/- per month from 4.1.1994 for three years only. The total amount of mesne profits, as determined be paid to the plaintiffs within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The judgment and decree dated 16.11.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar,is modified as indicated above. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. 8. As a result of the decision in the appeal, C.R. No. 65 of 2004 becomes infructuous. Thus, the revision petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.