ORDER :- The present Second appeals are directed against common judgment and decree passed by I-Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal Nos. 15/1999 and 16/1999 dated 12-6-2003. The background facts of the case are as under: 2. The dispute is in respect of agricultural land bearing S. No. 40/2E consisting of 77 Are situated at village Rahuri, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. The present defendants are the owner and possessor of the said agricultural land. 3. The plaintiff agricultural university alleging that the suit land and other lands proposed for acquisition of lands for public purposes therefore, an award was declared and accordingly authorities have handed over the possession of the suit land to the university. 4. It is further contended that though the authorities bring the lands under cultivation but same was unauthorisedly occupied by the defendants by encroaching. It is further contended that some of the agriculturists handed over the possession of the lands to the plaintiff university by mutual understanding. Therefore, the plaintiff files suit for removal of encroachment and for possession of the suit lands, the plaintiff also claims damages from the defendants. 5. The defendants appeared before the trial Court and filed their written statement at Exh.30-A and resisted the claims and allegations made in the plaint. It is contended that the suit is not properly presented nor the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try and decide the suit. It is further denied that the acquiring authority have taken the possession from the defendants at the time of alleged acquisition. It is denied that the defendants have given the possession to the plaintiffs. It is contended that the defendants have not received any notice from acquiring authority for possession nor the possession receipt was executed and therefore, it is contended that the defendants are in possession of the suit lands. 6. It is contended that the suit property never vested with the plaintiff therefore, the suit based on title and possession is misconceived, it is further contended that the alleged possession receipt is otherwise false and bogus. It is further contended that physical possession of the land was never taken by the Government Officer or any officer of the University therefore, defendants pray for dismissal of the suit. 7. It is further contended that physical possession of the land was never taken by the Government Officer or any officer of the University therefore, defendants pray for dismissal of the suit. 7. It is further contended that the plaintiff university has filed various suits against the various agriculturists and in the said suit the learned Civil Court was pleased to dismiss the said suit filed by the plaintiff university. The appellants crave to rely on the judgment and decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 188/83 as and when required in the interest of justice. 8. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties, framed various issues and after hearing the parties on merits, decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide common judgment and decree dated 31-8-1998. 9. The present appellant aggrieved by the common judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, preferred R.C.A.Nos.15/99 and 16/99 before District Judge, Ahmednagar. The Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, after hearing the matter on merits, pleased to dismiss the appeals filed by defendants, by its common judgment and decree dated 12-6-2003, hence this Second Appeal. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the actual possession of the suit property has not been taken by original plaintiff from the defendant-appellant. It is also nowhere mentioned in the suit that on which date, the possession of the suit land was taken by the respondent-plaintiffs. It is further submitted that the plaintiff university has never received actual possession of the suit land, the university has not proved the possession receipts as required under law. It is further submitted that it was obligatory on the lower appellate Court to frame all the necessary issues and findings thereon. It is further submitted that the Courts below have not properly considered the mode of taking possession as per sections 16 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is necessary to take actual possession of the land and there cannot be any other method for taking possession of the land. In view of the guide-lines and observations, as laid down in AIR 1975 SC page 1767. It is further submitted that all the formalities for obtaining possession have not been complied with, merely going on the spot, making declaration that possession is taken, will not suffice that actual possession was taken by the authorities. In view of the guide-lines and observations, as laid down in AIR 1975 SC page 1767. It is further submitted that all the formalities for obtaining possession have not been complied with, merely going on the spot, making declaration that possession is taken, will not suffice that actual possession was taken by the authorities. It is further submitted that alleged possession receipts by plaintiff are not proved. It is further submitted that the revenue entries will not prove the title of the plaintiff-university over the suit land. It is further submitted that the appellants never received compensation amount towards the acquisition of land of the appellants. It is further submitted that the lands of the appellants were never acquired by the university. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents original plaintiff university submitted that both the Courts on facts concurrently held that the university has taken possession of the suit land and whether possession of the land is taken or not by the university is the question of facts and therefore, there is no any substantial question of law arises in these Second Appeals for the consideration of this Court. Therefore, Second Appeals deserve to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on number of decisions of the Supreme Court as well this Court, to support his contention that it is not necessary to take actual possession in strict sense. He further submitted that when there are concurrent findings of facts, no interference can be called for in the Second Appeals. He submitted that Second Appeals deserve to be dismissed. 12. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and respondent at great length. Perused the common judgment and order passed by the Courts below. The trial Court framed as many as 10 issues. Issue No.5 was whether the defendants prove that physical possession of suit land was never taken by the Government officer or any officer of the plaintiff-university? The said issue is answered in negative. The discussion about the said issue is in para 19 of the trial Court judgment. In said para, the evidence of witness No. 1 Harichandra Ramchandra Thube is considered which is at Exh.21, shows that he was serving as Awwal Karkun in Tahsil office, Rahuri and the Mamlatdar had deputed to hand over possession of the lands which were acquired for agricultural university Rahuri. In said para, the evidence of witness No. 1 Harichandra Ramchandra Thube is considered which is at Exh.21, shows that he was serving as Awwal Karkun in Tahsil office, Rahuri and the Mamlatdar had deputed to hand over possession of the lands which were acquired for agricultural university Rahuri. His evidence is that as per order and direction of the Mamlatdar he actually visited on the acquired land. Seen their possession and then prepared joint possession receipt and the possession was handed over to the representative Shri Sabale of the Rahuri agricultural university. That possession receipt is at Exh.22. His evidence shows that 7x12 extract of both the lands i.e. Sr. No. 40/1 and 40/2 E that the plaintiff is owner of that lands and that 7 x 12 extract is also at Exh.4. His evidence shows that he had received actual possession of both the lands from the defendant Maruti Balwant Pawar and handed over the same to the representative of the plaintiff-university on 14-6-1971. 13. In para 20, the trial Court has discussed the evidence of P.W.2 Damodhar Kasinath Sable, who stated that he being representative of the plaintiff-university, had taken possession of the suit land along with other lands from Harichandra Ramchandra Thube on 14-6-1971. He further submitted that the common possession receipt was prepared and that possession receipt shows the number of suit land along with names of their owners. 14. In para 23, the trial Court further observed that in order to prove the title, the plaintiff had produced notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act issued by Commissioner Pune Division at Exh.46, wherein lands situated at village Rahuri Kd. as well as suit lands were acquired under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act and date is shown as 6-8-1964, Exh.47 i.e. certified copy of the compensation awarded and paid to the agriculturists i.e. Award No.LAQ/SR/468 dtd. 20.3.71. Moreover, Exh.48 is also Award issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth Rahuri, pertaining to the suit lands and other lands, and claims of the claimants dtd. 20-3-1971. The plaintiff has also filed other public documents which are at Exh.49 and 50. 20.3.71. Moreover, Exh.48 is also Award issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth Rahuri, pertaining to the suit lands and other lands, and claims of the claimants dtd. 20-3-1971. The plaintiff has also filed other public documents which are at Exh.49 and 50. In para 24, the trial Court has observed that it is clear from the evidence of the plaintiff and the defendants and particularly panchanama and possession receipts Exh.24 that the plaintiff is shown as owner of the suit property since 1969 and the name of the plaintiff is shown in ownership column. Documentary evidence filed by the plaintiff remained unrebutted or challenged by the defendants. 7/12 extracts and other public documents filed by the plaintiff at Exh.4 7, 48 and 49 shows title of the plaintiff over both the suit lands. 7/12 extracts of both the suit lands show that plaintiff is the owner of both lands and defendants are unauthorisedly in possession of it, plaintiff is shown as owner and defendants are unauthorisedly in possession of the suit lands. Possession of the defendants are unauthorised and therefore, there was cause of action for filing the suit. It is further observed that when the defendants failed to hand over the possession of unauthorised occupation, the suit was filed by the present plaintiffs. The trial Court thus held that the evidence of the plaintiffs side shows that they are the owners of the suit property and have actually taken possession of it after 1968-69 and the defendants have also taken land acquisition compensation amounts. The commissioner, Pune has also issued notification and' afterwards defendants received compensation amounts. The trial Court decreed the suit filed by plaintiff. The present appellants approached the lower Appellate Court. 15. The lower Appellate Court framed as many as 6 issues for its consideration. The first issue was whether plaintiff-university proves that defendants, are unauthorisedly in possession of the suit lands? The said issue is answered in' affirmative. Further issue was framed whether plaintiff-university is entitled for possession of the suit land. Said issue is also answered in affirmative. The lower Appellate Court has discussed the evidence in para 7 and observed that the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be discarded. He had done the work of taking possession from the defendants and handing over the same to plaintiff-university in discharge of public duties. Said issue is also answered in affirmative. The lower Appellate Court has discussed the evidence in para 7 and observed that the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be discarded. He had done the work of taking possession from the defendants and handing over the same to plaintiff-university in discharge of public duties. It is seen on careful perusal of the possession receipts from Exh.22 and Exh.23 that these are xerox copies of the possession receipts in respect of suit lands. The lower Appellate Court further observed that the evidence of P.W.! shows that he had taken possession of the suit lands on 14-6-1971 and handed over the same to the plaintiff-university. Nothing has come on record to disbelieve his testimony about taking possession by him from the defendants and thereafter, handing over the same to plaintiff-university in respect of the suit lands. It is further observed that it is well settled that when land has been acquired as per provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the possession of it is taken out the land vests with the Government. It is further observed that the .defendants had not examined themselves but examined their power of attorney D.W.1. Taking overall view of the matter, the lower Appellate Court observed that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 goes to show that possession of the suit land was taken from the defendants by P.W.1 on 14-6-1971 and thereafter, it was handed over to P.W.2 by P.W.I. It is not the case of the defendants that they had challenged the land acquisition proceedings in respect of suit lands. Therefore, the land acquisition proceedings carried out in respect of suit lands and the award passed therein is legal and proper and as land vests in Government, the defendants have no right or concern in the suit lands. It is further observed that the defendants are in unauthorised possession of the suit lands by taking disadvantage that the plaintiff-university could not look after their lands being the area of thousands of acres. The 7/12 extract of the suit land at ExhA purports to show that the name of the plaintiff-university had been entered in the column of occupant i.e. title holder upon the suit lands and the names of defendants had been shown in the column of cultivation as unauthorised cultivators. This entry of unauthorised cultivation is for the year 1979-80 upto 1982-83. This entry of unauthorised cultivation is for the year 1979-80 upto 1982-83. There is nothing on record to disbelieve above entry of unauthorised occupation of defendants upon the suit lands. Therefore, the lower Appellate Court held that the plaintiff-university is entitled for possession of the suit lands as well as damages. The suit is not bad for non-rejoinder of necessary party, and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the same. The appeal was dismissed. Both the Courts concurrently on facts held against present appellants. Both the Courts held that defendants are in possession of all suit lands unauthorisedly and illegally. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope of Second Appeal under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. In Veerayee Ammal vs. Seeni Ammal, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 134 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of facts cannot be disturbed in Second Appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and others, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 722 , held as under: "(1) High Court must adhere to the procedure and conditions prescribed in the section and no Court has the power to add to or enlarge the conditions of appeal; (2) High Court must satisfy itself that a substantial question of law is involved and must then formulate the question on which the appeal would then be heard; (3) The respondent has the right to argue that no substantial question of law is involved; (4) A second appeal cannot be decided on merely equitable grounds; (5) The Court must distinguish between a question of law and a substantial question of law; (6) A substantial question of law must be distinguished from a substantial question of fact; and . (7) Concurrent findings of fact, however, erroneous, cannot be disturbed under the section." 17. In the instant case, there are concurrent findings of facts. 18. The Supreme Court had considered the issue of possession in respect of land acquisition cases. In case of State of T. N and another VS. Mahalakshmi Ammal and others, reported in (1996) 7 SCC 269 , the Supreme Court held that the possession of acquired land taken by way of a memorandum, panchanama, which is a legally accepted form. It would not be possible to take any physical possession. In case of State of T. N and another VS. Mahalakshmi Ammal and others, reported in (1996) 7 SCC 269 , the Supreme Court held that the possession of acquired land taken by way of a memorandum, panchanama, which is a legally accepted form. It would not be possible to take any physical possession. Therefore, subsequent continuation of possession of erstwhile owner is illegal and unlawful which does not bind the Government. In the case of Puttu Lal (Dead) by L.Rs. VS. State of U P. and another, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 99 , the Supreme Court in para 3 held that having acquired the land under the provisions of the Act and the possession having been taken thereunder, the right, title and interest held by the land owner extinguished and vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Consequently, the State is the absolute owner. The State being the owner, is entitled to file the suit for possession. In another case of P. K. Kalburqi vs. State of Karnataka and others, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 489 , the Supreme Court held that there cannot be any hard and fast rule laying down what act would be sufficient to constitute taking of possession of land. In certain cases only symbolic possession can be taken. In another case of Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust, Amritsar VS. State of Punjab and others, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 212 , the Supreme Court held that it is difficult to take physical possession of the land under compulsory acquisition. The normal mode of taking possession is drafting the panchanama in the presence of panchas and taking possession and giving delivery to the beneficiaries is the accepted mode of taking possession of the land. Subsequent thereto, the retention of possession would tantamount only to illegal or unlawful possession. 19. Taking over all view of the matter, in my considered view, there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. There is no substance in the Second Appeals. Hence both Second Appeals are dismissed summarily. 20. In view of dismissal of Second Appeals, Civil Application No. 3725/98 (in S.A. No. 529/04) and Civil Application No. 3733/98 (in S.A. No. 533/04) do not survive and those are disposed of. Appeals dismissed.