Rakesh Srivastava, J. Heard Sri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Satish Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the respondent. The plaintiff-respondent no. 1 filed an Original Suit no. 1947 of 2012 for permanent injunction alongwith an application under Order 39 Rule 1&2 readwith Section 151 C.P.C. praying that the appellant/defendant be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 and also from demolishing his construction. It was further prayed that the land in dispute be not allotted to anyone else. The case of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 was that he was the owner in possession of Khasra plot no. 285 ( measuring 0.1140 hectares) situated in village Nasirpur, District Ghaziabad. It was stated that only 0.580 Hectare of land was acquired and the remaining land of Khasra Plot no. 285 measuring 0.560 Hectare ( which is equivalent to 4 Bigha 9 Biswa) on which the plaintiff's abadi was situated was not acquired and as such the action of the appellant/defendant in interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 was totally unwarranted. The said suit was contested by the appellant/defendant inter-alia on the ground that the total area of plot in dispute was acquired and the possession was handed over to the improvement Trust Ghaziabad ( now Ghaziabad Development Authority) on 7.8.1963. In support of its case the appellant/defendant relied upon a notification dated 13.8.1962 issued by the State Government under sub Section ( 1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 readwith Section 151 C.P.C. has been allowed by the learned Civil Judge ( Senior Division) Ghaziabad vide order dated 28.1.2013. The appellant/defendant has been restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 in so far as 0.560 Hectare ( 4 Bigha 9 Biswa) land of Khasra plot no. 285 on which the Abadi of the plaintiff/respondent no.1 is situated. The order dated 28.1.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge ( Senior Division) Ghaziabad is under challenge in the present F.A.F.O. The order dated 28.1.2013 passed by learned court below has been challenged inter-alia on the ground that the entire land of Khasra plot no. 285 was acquired and the possession was given to the appellant/defendant, that the plaintiff/respondent no. The order dated 28.1.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge ( Senior Division) Ghaziabad is under challenge in the present F.A.F.O. The order dated 28.1.2013 passed by learned court below has been challenged inter-alia on the ground that the entire land of Khasra plot no. 285 was acquired and the possession was given to the appellant/defendant, that the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 had indirectly challenged the notification issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Act and as such the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 and the injunction application filed by him was not maintainable as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to enter into the validity of the notification, that there was no consent given by the appellant/defendant in Case no. 27/1989-90 under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, that even assuming that any such consent was given by the any officer of the appellant/defendant even then the land could not be treated to have been released by the appellant/defendant, that the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff/respondent to establish that the land in dispute was not acquired. The specific case of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 was that only a portion of Khasra plot no. 285 mentioned above had been acquired and the remaining land over which the Abadi of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 was situated had not been acquired. Once this averment was made by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1, the burden of proof that the entire land of Khasra plot no. 285 was acquired shifted upon the appellant/defendant. In support of the contention that the entire land of Khasra plot no. 285 had been acquired, the appellant-defendant relied upon a notification dated 13.8.1962 issued by the State Government under Section 4( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A perusal of the notification dated 13.8.1962 would show that the entire land of Khasra plot no. 285 had been notified. But the notification under section 4( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act is not a conclusive proof that the entire land of Khasra plot no. 285 had been acquired. Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as follows:- 6. 285 had been notified. But the notification under section 4( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act is not a conclusive proof that the entire land of Khasra plot no. 285 had been acquired. Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as follows:- 6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose- ( 1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act [When the [appropriate Government] is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A. sub section( 2)], that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders [ and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under Section 4. Sub-section ( 1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made ( wherever required) under Section 5-A, sub-section ( 2)]: [Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under Section 4, sub-section( 1),- ( i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition ( Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967, but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition ( Amendment) Act, 1984 shall be made after the expiry of the three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or ( ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition ( Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification;" ( 2) the following Explanations shall be inserted at the end, namely:- "Explanation 1.- In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4, sub-section ( 1), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded. Explanation 2. Explanation 2. - Where the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid out of the funds of a corporation owned or controlled by the State, such compensation shall be deemed to be compensation paid out of public revenues"] : Provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a Company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by, local authority. ( 2) [Every declaration] shall be published in the official Gazette [and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality ( the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the declaration), and such declaration shall state] the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected. ( 3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a Company as the case may be; and, after making such declaration, the [appropriate Government], may acquire the land in manner hereinafter appearing. As per sub section ( 3) of Section 6 only a declaration under sub Section ( 2) of Section 6 is a conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose and only after making a declaration as mentioned above, the appropriate government may acquire the land as per the procedure prescribed. The appellant/defendant did not place on record even the notification under Section 6 and only on the basis of the notification and Section 4 claimed that the entire land of Khasra plot no. 285 had been acquired. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant/defendant failed to establish that the entire land of Khasra plot no. 285 had been acquired. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the plaintiff respondent no. 285 had been acquired. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant/defendant failed to establish that the entire land of Khasra plot no. 285 had been acquired. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the plaintiff respondent no. 1 has challenged the notifications issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Act indirectly is also misconceived. As already mentioned above the case of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 was that only part of Khasra plot no. 285 was acquired and as such it was not open to the defendant/appellant to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 over the remaining portion of Khasra plot no. 285. In the suit the notification under Section 4 and 6 was not under challenge at all as alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant. In the circumstances the case reported in AIR 1995 SC 1955 ( State of Bihar Vs. Dhirendra Kumar and others) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help to the appellant/defendant. In so far as order dated 15.4.2002 passed under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in Case no. 27/1989-90 is concerned it was submitted on behalf of the appellant/defendant that firstly no consent was given by the appellant/defendant and secondly on the basis of the alleged consent the land in dispute could not be treated to have been released in favour of the appellant. The counsel for the appellant/defendant has placed reliance upon a case reported in AIR 2010 SC 433 ( Santi Sports Club and Anr. Vs. Union of India and others). The question of release of land from acquisition would come only after it is established that the land was acquired. As already stated above the burden to prove that the land in dispute was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act was upon the appellant/defendant. Learned court below has categorically recorded a finding that the appellant/defendant had not placed on record any document on the basis of which it could be established that the land in dispute had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Even before this Court the appellant/defendant has failed to establish that the land in dispute was acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act. The admitted case of the parties is that over the land in dispute the Abadi of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 is situated. Even before this Court the appellant/defendant has failed to establish that the land in dispute was acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act. The admitted case of the parties is that over the land in dispute the Abadi of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 is situated. Since the appellant/defendant has failed to establish that the land in dispute was acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act either before the court below or before this Court. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the order dated 18.1.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge ( Senior Division) Ghaziabad. The First Appeal From Order is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.