JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgement of the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Alwar who by judgement dated 12.4.2005 has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgement and decree dated 11.1.2001 passed by Civil Judge (JD) No.1, Alwar, whereby the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff-appellant claimed that he was in possession of the part of land of khasra no.1185 and using the same for residential purposes. The plaintiff purchased the plot carved out of the said agricultural land by agreement dated 11.4.1985 for consideration of Rs. 15,000 and was put in possession. Plaintiff while raising construction left 33 feet and 9 inches wide land opened on east and west of the plot for ventilation and light, which land plaintiff was using as laun. The defendant-UIT, Alwar and its Enforcement Officer are seeking to dispossess the appellant from the land. 3. The perusal of the impugned judgement indicates that the trial court as well as the first appellate court analysed the evidence adduced by the plaintiff in the light of possession. The Court below found that Ex.1, the site plan produced by the plaintiff has given the measurement of her plot on east as 33 feet, southern side to be 10 feet 9 inches and on northern side to be 6 feet 9 inches. No map was produced by the plaintiff with the agreement to sale except Ex.1, the site plan indicating the length of the plot to be 76 feet from 'A' to 'B' and from 'B1' to 'B1', 10 feet 9 inches. Below 'A' shown a nali and between that nali and house of the plaintiff, a pucca bathroom and toilet is constructed and adjoining thereto shown is a land of UIT. 4. The learned first appellate court has observed that the plaintiff appellant could not explain as to wherefrom 76 feet length of the plot begins. It was observed that on the northern side of the plot, an open land has been shown between the two plots, which meets the road. 4. The learned first appellate court has observed that the plaintiff appellant could not explain as to wherefrom 76 feet length of the plot begins. It was observed that on the northern side of the plot, an open land has been shown between the two plots, which meets the road. It clearly shows that the plaintiff has the Government land in front of her plot which she is stating as her lawn, whereas it is a Government land and if the land on which toilet and bathroom has been constructed by the plaintiff is included into the plot, the measurement of the plot of the plaintiff would match with that indicated in Ex.1. In other words, the learned courts below were satisfied that plaintiff has tried to shift the location of his plot by first raising the construction of toilet and bathroom on the back side and taking advantage of the fact that there is open Government land lying in front of it, has started using it as lawn and then now wants the court to measure 76 feet length of the plot from the front by including this Government land, whereas the fact is that, this was a Government land and the land behind the plot on which bathroom and toilet have been constructed by the plaintiff-appellant is part of her own plot. 5. During the course of arguments, Shri S.R. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant has sought to justify by contending that even if it be assumed that the plaintiff had constructed the toilet and bathroom by making encroachment upon the Government land, that would not justify her dispossession from her own land from the front side. 6. Concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the courts below on this aspect. I am not prepared to accept that contention because encroachment on public way in such a fashion cannot be allowed to be regularised by issuing uncalled for injunction. 7. This appeal does not raise any question of law, much less any substantial question of law because the findings recorded by the courts below are based on facts. 8. The appeal is therefore dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******