JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. (Oral): This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendants/appellants against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for permanent prohibitory injunction alongwith mandatory injunction was decreed by the learned trial Court and the said decree affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit claiming therein that he is owner of the land comprised in Khasra No. 30, Khata/Khatauni No. 11/13 min, measuring 3-9 bighas situated in mauza Devthal, Pargana Bharoli, Tehsil and District Solan (H.P.) as per jamabandi for the year 1996-97, whereas defendants were strangers having no right, title and interest who through defendants No. 2 and 3 have forcibly encroached upon the suit land to the extent of 2-14 bighas depicted by Khasra No. 30/1 as per tatima prepared by patwari halqua. The grievance of the plaintiff was that defendants had constructed a pump house, one two room and one three room set unauthoriseldy and illegally without the consent of the plaintiff or his predecessor. Despite repeated requests officials of the defendants did not vacate the land instead they were threatening to encroach upon remaining vacant land by raising construction of latrine in left out portion of Khasra No. 30 depicted as Khasra No. 30/2. It is also alleged that neither plaintiff nor his predecessor-in-interest had ever consented for raising any construction and thus, construction was required to be demolished and in the alternative plaintiff also contended that if court comes to the conclusion that construction and encroachment in Khasra No. 30/1 is not to be disturbed, then a decree for mandatory injunction be passed against defendants for making acquisition of land as per the Land Acquisition Act by paying market value of the land to the plaintiff. Since, defendants have no legal right to interfere on the remaining portion of Khasra No. 30 denoted with Khasra No. 30/2 and have no right to change its nature in any manner by making further construction to which decree for permanent prohibitory injunction has been prayed. Cause of action arose to the plaintiff on 24-8-2000 when defendants started encroaching upon Khasra No. 30 further interfered by another part of suit land denoted by Khasra No.30/2. Cause of action arose to the plaintiff on 24-8-2000 when defendants started encroaching upon Khasra No. 30 further interfered by another part of suit land denoted by Khasra No.30/2. Accordingly, plaintiff prayed for grant of decree for possession by demolishing construction raised upon Khasra No. 30/1 and in alternative a decree for mandatory injunction directing defendants to immediately initiate acquisition proceedings and to acquire the suit land and grant compensation and decree for permanent injunction restraining defendants from raising further construction upon Khasra No. 30/2 as shown in tatima. 3.Defendants resisted the suit, filed joint written statement and raised preliminary objection of maintainability, cause of action, suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, suit having not been properly valued, suit being time barred and that the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands. On merits, it was contended that defendants were in possession of suit land upon which they had constructed a pump house more than 25 years back and the land was in possession of the Government of India. It has been emphatically denied that officials of defendants No. 2 and 3 had forcibly encroached upon any portion of suit land rather Government of India was owner-in-possession of suit land. Cause of action was denied. It was further submitted that old Khasra No. 42, now 30/1 and Khasra Nos. 39, 40, 49, now Khasra No. 30 was not being interfered with by defendants and therefore question of irreparable loss to the plaintiff did not arise. Accordingly, suit was prayed to be dismissed. 4.From the pleadings of the parties, Ld. Trial Court framed the following issues on 6.1.2004: 1. Whether defendants have encroached upon the suit land, as alleged? OPP 2.Whether the defendants are interfering in the suit land? ... OPP 3.Whether the suit is not maintainable? ... OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? ... OPD 5.Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?... OPD 6.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction? ... OPP 7.Relief. ... OPP 3.Whether the suit is not maintainable? ... OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? ... OPD 5.Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?... OPD 6.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction? ... OPP 7.Relief. 5.The learned trial Court after recording the evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiff and accordingly passed a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction alongwith mandatory injunction to the effect that the suit land on which the defendants had already made construction be acquired as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and compensation be paid to the plaintiff. 6.Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court, who vide judgment and decree dated 16.7.2012 has been pleased to dismiss the appeal. 7.Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Appellate Court, the defendants have preferred the present appeal. 8.I have heard Shri Rajiv Jiwan, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Bimal Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, wrong, unjust and contrary to the facts and law and, therefore, deserve to be set aside. It is further stated that the learned Courts below have lent undue credence and weightage to the deposition of PW-1. The learned Courts below could not have passed the judgments and decrees since the land was already acquired by the appellants long back after having initiated the proceedings in accordance with law. Lastly, it was contended that the learned Courts below have ignored the documentary evidence led by the defendants/appellants Exts. DW3/B to DW3/H and thereby reached at wrong conclusion. In case, these documents have been appreciated in the right perspective, the result of the case would be otherwise. 9. The learned Courts below have concurrently found the plaintiff/respondent to be the owner of the land for this purpose. They have rightly relied upon the jamabandi for the year 1996-97 Ext. PW2/C, which showed Khasra No. 30 to be measuring 3 Bighas 9 Biswas and vide mutation No. 63, plaintiff Gorkhia had become its owner. In the jamabandi prior to this of the year 1991-92 Ext. They have rightly relied upon the jamabandi for the year 1996-97 Ext. PW2/C, which showed Khasra No. 30 to be measuring 3 Bighas 9 Biswas and vide mutation No. 63, plaintiff Gorkhia had become its owner. In the jamabandi prior to this of the year 1991-92 Ext. PW2/D and another jamabandi for the year 1979-80, the plaintiff is shown in possession of Khasra No. 30. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the plaintiff is the owner of the land in dispute. 10.On the other hand, Ext.DW3/B purportedly is “handing over” and “taking over” certificate dated 08.01.1976, whereby physical possession of the land measuring 6 Bighas 1 Biswa of village Devthal, District Solan, was taken under Section 17(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1984. The detail of land which has been taken over shows that Khasra numbers 43, 42, 49, 41, 48, 53, 47, 52, 39, 40, 46 and 50, measuring 6 Bighas 1 Biswa was acquired by the defendants. Ext. DW3/C is another document pertaining to village Katdoli, Nabti, Katal-Ki-Bagh, Garkhal and Deothal, which shows the details of Khasra No. 43, 42, 49, 41, 48, 53, 47, 52, 39, 40, 46, 50, which have been partly acquired. Ext. DW3/D is the notification of land acquisition relating to village Garkhal and Katdoli acquired for water supply pipe line, pump line and reservoir for defence personnel at Kasauli. Ext. DW3/E is award pertaining to the lands acquired in the different villages including Deothal. It has been observed in the award that there was no objection for the acquisition of land and all the effected parties had asked for the compensation to be paid to them at the earliest. Ext. DW3/F is letter dated 30.07.1976 addressed to Assistant Military Estate Officer written by the Land Acquisition Collector, Solan, vide which it has been intimated that out of ‘ 15,207.15, a sum of ‘ 15,000/- has been received, but balance of ‘ 207.15 had not been received so far and the above said letter was replied by the Defence Estate Officer vide letter dated 28.08.1986 notifying that aforesaid balance amount of ‘.207.15 has been deposited. Ext. DW3/H is the letter dated 11.01.2008 addressed to District Collector, Solan, intimating about the acquisition proceedings of award No. 1 and 2 dated 09.07.1976 and the details of the payment made by the defence authorities. Ext. DW3/H is the letter dated 11.01.2008 addressed to District Collector, Solan, intimating about the acquisition proceedings of award No. 1 and 2 dated 09.07.1976 and the details of the payment made by the defence authorities. It is on the strength of these documents that the defendants/appellants had contended that the land of the plaintiff stood duly acquired and compensation in lieu of such acquisition had already been paid to them. 11.The learned Courts below after taking into consideration the documents Exts. DW3/B to DW3/H, have come to the conclusion that there is no iota of evidence led by the defendants to prove on record that Khasra No. 30, which is the subject matter of the suit had in fact been acquired. 12.Now insofar as appreciating the testimony of PW-1 is concerned, he prepared Tatima Ext. PW1/A showing Khasra No. 30/1 measuring 2-14 Bighas to have been encroached by the defendants, rather on remaining vacant land also construction was contemplated to be made. PW-1 is none other than the Patwari of the area, who in his cross-examination has deposed that he has prepared Tatima on the basis of Latha and Musavi. He further deposed that staff of MES was present, but did not raise any objection, which shows that the Tatima was prepared in presence of the officials of the appellants, who did not choose to raise any objection. In such circumstances, the learned Courts below were required to give due credence and weightage to the statement of PW-1 and no exception to the same can be taken. 13. It is settled law that a finding of fact even if erroneous, will generally not be disturbed but where it is found that the findings stand vitiated on wrong test and on the basis of assumptions and conjectures and resultantly there is an element of perversity involved therein, this Court will be well within its jurisdiction to deal with the issue, because an issue pertaining to perversity comes within the ambit of substantial question of law. It would be duty of this Court to consider the reasons given by the learned Courts below whether it has reasons to believe that the Courts below have rejected and disbelieved the evidence on unacceptable grounds. It would be duty of this Court to consider the reasons given by the learned Courts below whether it has reasons to believe that the Courts below have rejected and disbelieved the evidence on unacceptable grounds. However, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court will not disturb the concurrent findings of fact unless it is shown that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse being based on no evidence or that on the evidence on record no reasonable person could have come to that conclusion merely because another view is possible on the basis of the evidence, this Court would not be entitled to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (See Kulwant Kaur Vs. Gurdial Singh Mann, (2001) 4 SCC 262 , Govindaraju Vs. Mariamman (2005) 2 SCC 500 ). 14.Both the Courts below have taken into consideration the pleadings of the parties, evaluated the evidence in the right perspective and thereafter, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The findings recorded by the learned Courts below are pure findings of fact and no question of law muchless substantial question of law arises for determination in the present appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.