Judgment SINGH, C.—This is appeal under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short `the Act') against the impugned judgment dated 13.7.07 of Revenue Appellate Authority Bharatpur passed in appeal No. 32/07. 2. The factual matrix arising out of the case is that the respondents No. 1 to 5 plaintiffs filed a suit against the appellant-defendant under Sections 183 and 188 of the Act- which was decreed by Sub-Divisional Officer by his impugned judgment dated 13.2.07, aggrieved against which the appellant-defendant preferred an appeal under Section 223 of the Act before Revenue Appellate Authority Bharatpur who vide his impugned judgment dated 13.7.07 dismissed the appeal. Hence the second appeal before this Court. 3. We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties. 4. The learned Government Advocate argued on behalf of the appellant that 6th Battalion of Rajasthan Armed Constabulary (R.A.C. in short) has been in effective possession of the disputed land since 1966; as such the matter of recovery of possession of the disputed land to respondents-plaintiffs is time barred. But the lower courts did not apply its mind on the point of limitation and allowed a time barred case illegally. It is also argued that the suit was barred by res-judicata. The issue of res-judicata was incorrectly decided by the lower courts. It was argued that the R.A.C. has constructed a well on the site and there is electric connection on the well. It is also argued that the appellant has acquired title by way of adverse possession. The learned Government Advocate requested for allowing the appeal with dismissal of the judgment of both the lower courts. 5. Countering the arguments of the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the disputed land has always been recorded in the khatedari rights of respondents-plaintiffs and their forefathers. The disputed land is not in the khatedari right of the appellant defendant who is only a trespasser on the land. Earlier in the year 1983 the R.A.C. tried to have forcible possession on the land against which respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 188 of the Act which got dismissed on the ground that the suit was filed in the personal name of the then commandant of the R.A.C. who later on was transferred. This suit was not decided on merits. This suit was not decided on merits. Later on in June 1996 the R.A.C. forcibly took possession of the land so respondents-plaintiffs had to file a suit under Section 183 of the Act for ejectment and recovery of possession. As such the suit was neither time barred nor prohibited by the principle of res-judicita. There is no issue framed in the lower court about the adverse possession, so the plea of adverse possession cannot be accepted at this stage of second appeal. The respondents-plaintiffs are the khatedars of the land and the appellant is a gross trespasser who has no right in the disputed land; as such the judgments of both the lower courts are in order and do not warrant any interference. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsels, carefully perused the impugned judgments of both the lower courts and gone through the record available on the file. 7. Admittedly, the respondents-plaintiffs are recorded as khatedar tenants of the disputed land in the revenue records like jamabandies and khasra girdawaris. It is also an admitted fact that presently the disputed land is in possession of the 6th Battalion of the R.A.C. The appellant has not specified categorically as to how he came into possession of the land which is recorded in the khatedari right of the respondents-plaintiffs. Apparently it seems that the appellant has taken forcible possession of the disputed land. 8. The trial Court has framed three issues and each one of them has been dealt with separately and decided in light of the laid down procedure and law. The issue No. 1 relates to title of the land and recovery of possession. It is proved beyond doubt through oral and documentary evidence adduced before the trial Court that respondents-plaintiffs are the khatedar tenants and as such worthy of recovery of possession of the disputed land from which they were dispossessed in month of `Jyestha' of Svt. 2053 (corresponding period June 1996) by the appellant. The second issue pertains to res-judicata which has correctly been decided by the lower courts. Earlier suit was under Section 188 of the Act which was not decided on merits. The suit under consideration is under Section 183 of the Act based on altogether different facts and seeking different relief. 2053 (corresponding period June 1996) by the appellant. The second issue pertains to res-judicata which has correctly been decided by the lower courts. Earlier suit was under Section 188 of the Act which was not decided on merits. The suit under consideration is under Section 183 of the Act based on altogether different facts and seeking different relief. We do not find any reason to interfere in the concurrent inference of both the lower courts in holding that this matter is not affected by the principle of res-judicata. The issue No. 3 is very important in view of the fact that it relates to disputed land being government property the possession of which was handed over to the appellant legally. Not an iota of evidence of any sort whether oral or documentary has been adduced to prove the fact that the disputed land is a government property. The revenue record proves to the contrary. There is not even a shred of evidence supporting the alleged claim that the disputed land was handed over to the appellant according to the due process of law. That the suit land is in possession of the appellant is undisputed; but how the appellant came into possession of the land is a moot point about which appellant is utterly silent and learned government advocate unable to say a single word. The appellant-defendant has miserably failed in proving the issue No. 3 and establishing that the disputed land is a government property duly handed over to the appellant. There is no government order or any order of any competent authority to prove the contention that this land was ever allotted to the appellant and possession handed over in accordance with the law. Thus, lower courts have not committed any illegality in deciding the issue No. 3 against the appellant-defendant. It is, therefore, evident that possession of the appellant is that of a rank trespasser. 9. We do not agree with the learned Government Advocate that appellant has very-long-standing-possession on the land which should not be disturbed. The possession to be protected must have legitimacy about it. Giving protection to possession of a rank trespasser would tantamount to putting premium on lawlessness. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion we find no infirmity or illegality in the concurrent judgments of both the lower courts; as such the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference. The possession to be protected must have legitimacy about it. Giving protection to possession of a rank trespasser would tantamount to putting premium on lawlessness. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion we find no infirmity or illegality in the concurrent judgments of both the lower courts; as such the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference. There is no force in the appeal which is dismissed and the impugned judgment dated 13.7.07 is upheld. 11. Before parting from the case we would like to observe and highlight that the appellant 6th Battalion of the R.A.C. which is a uniformed armed agency of the State Government meant for preserving law and order in the State as strong arms of law has turned into a flagrant law breaker by taking forcible possession of other person's khatedari land in blatant display of brute force. Avowed protectors of law and order are not supposed to become brazen offenders of law forcibly taking over possession by arms twisting of hapless citizen who is a genuine khatedar tenant of the agricultural land. A copy of this judgment should be sent to Principle Secretary. Home to address the issues.