JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. The erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (defendant No. 2 in the trial Court) is in second appeal. Defendant No. 2 is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirmour district at Nahan in Civil Appeal No. 45-N/13 of 2000 whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 30.3.1999 passed by learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour in Civil Suit No. 6/1 of 1993 has been affirmed. 2. Respondents No. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) claim themselves to be owner in possession of the suit land measuring 0-1 biswa bearing Khasra No. 418/358, Khata No. 140min/238 and “Khokhas” constructed thereon situated at village Kolar, revenue estate Dhaula Kuan Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour. Admittedly, S/Shri Ami Chand and Fateh Singh were the owners of the suit land. Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 claim that it was acquired by their father late Shri Prem Chand by way of oral sale from the owners. On the death of Prem Chand, it is they who inherited the suit property along with their mother Smt. Parkasho. Said Smt. Parkasho has allegedly sold her share to plaintiff No. 3 Dharam Singh. They initially had raised construction of “Khokhas” on the suit land. Now they have raised construction of three pucca shops of brick, masonry. They were in continuous, peaceful and exclusive possession of the suit property without any interference from anyone including the defendants. They, however, came to know that defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 4 herein) had acquired the suit property vide award No. 60/72 dated 22.4.1972. The suit land after acquisition was transferred in favour of appellant-defendant No.2. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Paonta Sahib has initiated eviction proceedings against the plaintiffs vide order dated 23.10.1992. The warrant of possession was issued and the Field Kanungo had to take possession of the suit land after demolition of the structures in-existence thereon. However, before the warrant of possession is executed, the plaintiffs had obtained the copy of mutation No. 142 dated 20.8.1987 whereby the land was transferred in favour of the defendant-State. The plaintiffs had claimed that they cannot be evicted from the suit land in view of the same being not acquired in accordance with law. However, before the warrant of possession is executed, the plaintiffs had obtained the copy of mutation No. 142 dated 20.8.1987 whereby the land was transferred in favour of the defendant-State. The plaintiffs had claimed that they cannot be evicted from the suit land in view of the same being not acquired in accordance with law. Therefore, they filed the suit and sought declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit property and that the attestation of mutation No. 142 dated 20.8.1987 on the basis of award No. 60/72 is wrong, illegal and not binding on them and also that mutation No. 580 which has been attested in favour of defendant No. 2 subsequently on 30.6.1992 is also illegal, null and void. The proceedings initiated against them under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act and order of eviction dated 23.10.1992 being illegal were also sought to be declared as null and void. As a consequential relief, the said defendant was sought to be restrained from causing any interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. 3. The defendant No. 1 had contested and resisted the suit. In preliminary, objections qua jurisdiction of the trial Court to try and entertain the suit, the same bad for want of service of legal and valid notice under Section 80 CPC and also that there exists no enforceable cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants were raised. The suit was also sought to be dismissed being time barred. On merits, it was claimed that S/Shri Ami Chand and Fateh Chand were the recorded owners of the suit land at the time of acquisition. The suit land was acquired after complying with all codel formalities prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act. Compensation as determined was received by S/Shri Ami Chand and Fateh Singh. It is, therefore, claimed that Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Paonta Sahib has rightly initiated the proceedings under Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act against the plaintiffs and the order of eviction passed on 23.10.1992 is legal and valid. 4. The defendant No. 2 though had filed separate written statement, however, on the similar lines on which the defendant No. 1 has contested the suit. 5. The replication was also filed. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: 1. 4. The defendant No. 2 though had filed separate written statement, however, on the similar lines on which the defendant No. 1 has contested the suit. 5. The replication was also filed. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: 1. Whether plaintiff are owners in possession of the suit property, as alleged? ….OPP 2. Whether plaintiffs are bonafide purchasers with consideration and without notice of the suit property, as alleged? ….OPP 3. Whether mutation No. 142 dated 20.8.87 and mutation dated 20.6.1992 are wrong, void and illegal as alleged? ….OPP 4. Whether ejectment order dated 23.10.1992 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Paonta Sahib, is wrong, void and illegal, as alleged? …OPP 5. Whether suit is not maintainable, as alleged? …OPD 6. Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit as alleged? ……OPD 7. Whether suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, as alleged? ....OPD 8. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? …OPD 9. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of section 80 CPC? ……OPD 10. Whether defendant No. 2 became the owner of the suit land as a result of acquisition of the landed property, as alleged? ….OPD-2 11. Whether in the alternative, defendants are entitled to receive cost of the land underneath the shops of the plaintiffs, without ejecting the plaintiffs from the said shops, as alleged ? ….OPD 11-A. Whether the original owner Sh. Ami Chand had sold 0-1 biswa land to Sh. Prem Chand in the year 1969, as alleged. If so, to what effect? …..OPP 12. Relief. 6. The parties on both sides have produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their claims and counter claims. Learned trial Court on appreciation of the evidence available on record has arrived at a conclusion that Shri Prem Chand, the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 had acquired the suit land by way of oral sale well before the same was acquired, therefore, the acquisition proceedings were held illegal, null and void. The plaintiffs have been held to be joint owners in possession of the suit land. The suit as such was decreed as a whole. 7. The plaintiffs have been held to be joint owners in possession of the suit land. The suit as such was decreed as a whole. 7. The defendant No.2, no doubt, had assailed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in the Lower Appellate Court, however, unsuccessfully because learned Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree have been questioned on the grounds, inter alia, that at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act the recorded owners of the suit land were S/Shri Ami Chand and Fateh Singh. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued purposely to invite interested persons and raise objections, if any, to the acquisition proceedings. The plaintiffs never staked their claim during the course of the proceedings conducted under the Land Acquisition Act. Consequently, Land Acquisition Collector has assessed the market value of the acquired land and made award No. 60/1972 on 22.4.1972. The compensation was paid and received with respect to the acquired land by S/Shri Ami Chand and Fateh Singh. The suit land as such has rightly been transferred initially in the name of the respondent-State and subsequently in favour of the appellant-defendant No. 2. Both Courts below have allegedly failed to appreciate the given facts and circumstances and also the evidence available on record. The appeal though has been admitted on substantial questions of law at Serial Nos. 1 to 4 on page-7 of the paper book. There are, however, only three substantial questions of law at page-7, which read as follows: 1. Whether a person can claim any interest in any land/property which has been acquired by the Government under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and compensation as awarded by Land Acquisition Collector has been deposited with him? 2. Whether the Civil Court has any jurisdiction to declare the Land Acquisition proceedings to be null and void if the notifications under Sections 4 to 6 are not personally served on any interested persons but are otherwise duly notified? 3. Whether the application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was dismissed without any cogent reasons? 8. 2. Whether the Civil Court has any jurisdiction to declare the Land Acquisition proceedings to be null and void if the notifications under Sections 4 to 6 are not personally served on any interested persons but are otherwise duly notified? 3. Whether the application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was dismissed without any cogent reasons? 8. Before coming to the substantial questions of law as formulated, it is worth mentioning that the plaintiffs during the course of arguments has come forward with the version that the suit land is now no more required by the defendants. On the request made by learned Counsel, they were allowed to make representation to the Appellant-Board and also Public Works Department to explore the possibility that the suit land if not required can be de-notified from Acquisition or not. The order in this behalf passed on 18.3.2015 reads as follow: “Learned Counsel representing respondents No. 1 to 3 submits that the land in dispute most probably is now not required by the defendant- Board for the purpose, the same is acquired, as according to him, the road stood constructed on the spot over some other land. The suit land is still in possession of respondents No. 1 to 3 and that the shops they constructed are in existence thereon. They, therefore, intend to approach the appellant-Board and also Public Works Department to whom the road now stood transferred to explore the possibility as to whether the suit land can be de-notified from acquisition. Learned Counsel seeks time for the purpose. Allowed. List on 27th May, 2015. This Court be informed about the progress, if any, made in this regard n the date fixed.” 9. The representation made by the plaintiffs came to be decided by the Additional Chief Secretary, Public Works Department to the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide order dated 24.5.2015, which has been placed on record and reads as follow: “The Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 06-10-2015, directed the Secretary (PWD) to pass an order on the representation of the respondents who prayed that land comprised in khasra No. 418/358, be de-notified and land returned to the owners. 2. The HPSEB had acquired land for the construction of Giri Power House and constructed the road from Dhaulakuan to Giri Nagar. 2. The HPSEB had acquired land for the construction of Giri Power House and constructed the road from Dhaulakuan to Giri Nagar. HPSEB in the year 2011, transferred the road to PWD for maintenance etc., and the acquired width of said road is 20 meters (70 ft.). Accordingly, a demarcation was also obtained, wherein the field Kanungo pointed out that land of the representationist does not come in the acquired width of the road, although a part of the road so acquired has not been mutated in favour of the Government and matter has been taken up by the PWD authorities with the Revenue Department. 3. A personal hearing was given on 17.05.2016, wherein Superintending Engineer (HPSEB), Superintending Engineer, HPPWD, Nahan and Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Paonta Sahib attended, it was stated that Government acquired the land vide award No. 60/72 dated 22.04.1972, from Shri Amin Chand and Fateh Singh. Mutation vide No. 142 dated 20.08.1978, was entered, some portion of the land was further mutated in favour of HPSEB vide mutation No. 580 dated 30.04.1992. After mutation ejectment proceedings were initiated under section-163, of H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 and eviction order was also passed on 23.10.1992, against certain encroachers. During the hearing the Superintending Engineer, HPSEB stated that the road was constructed in the year 1969 and actual construction cost of the road was Rs. 0.59 lac. The taking over and handing over certificates from HPSEB to PWD, is also part of record, wherein it is stated that the total acquired width of road is 70 ft., 35 ft. on either site from the centre line of the road i.e. side burms as per the PCC burjis fixed the metalled road width is 4.50 mtrs. (average) and the maintained width of cause way in Sunkar Khala Nallah is 6.00 mtr., in Konthri Khala Nallah is 5.75 mtr & in Mandi Khallah Nallah is 5.25 mtr. 4. The Superintending Engineer, HPPWD Nahan has also stated that the junction of the said road is located at RD 83/500 on the Kala Amb Paonta Sahib NH-72 (New No. NH-7), and the acquired width of the NH from the centre line is 15.29 meters. That the road to Giri Nagar bifurcates at this junction and de-notifying the acquired land will add to traffic hazard and be a danger to motorists. That the road to Giri Nagar bifurcates at this junction and de-notifying the acquired land will add to traffic hazard and be a danger to motorists. Further the acquired width of the road to Giri Nagar may be required for future upgradation of road infrastructure. Therefore, the department is not keen to de-notify any of the land which stands acquired w.e.f. 1970’s. On the contrary encroachments on acquired/controlled width should be removed under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 or H.P. Road side Control Act. The respondents have stated that the structures put up by them are not a hindrance to the traffic and they have not occupied the acquired or controlled width. This aspect need to be taken cognizance of by the SDM (Collector), Paonta Sahib. In so far as plea regarding de-notifying the land is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. Accordingly the representation is rejected and accordingly disposed off.” 10. Not only this, but in support of the order passed by defendant No. 1 a site plan also came to be placed on record. On going through the same, this Court has observed in the order dated 30.5.2016 that the suit land is within the support of the order placed on record on the previous date, learned Additional Advocate General has also placed on record the site plan to show that the land in dispute is within the acquired width of Giri Nagar Perduni road. The order and the site plan reveal that the disputed land and dhara in existence thereon is the property acquired for the construction of Giri Nagar Perduni Road. The record produced by the appellant-defendant Board also reveals that the suit land was acquired and the compensation received by one Ami Chand, admittedly the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. In this view of the matter, the judgment and decree under challenge, prima-facie, is unsustainable. However, Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, learned Counsel representing the respondents-plaintiffs seeks time to have instructions in the light of the order and site plan now placed on record. Allowed. List on 20.6.2016.” 11. In view of the order ibid passed by this Court and also the order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Public Works Department to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, it would not be improper to conclude that the suit land has been acquired by defendant No. 1 for being used by defendant No. 2. Allowed. List on 20.6.2016.” 11. In view of the order ibid passed by this Court and also the order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Public Works Department to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, it would not be improper to conclude that the suit land has been acquired by defendant No. 1 for being used by defendant No. 2. The same situate within the acquired width of Giri Nagar-Perduni road and in the map placed on record during the course of proceedings in this appeal denoted by shops No. 1, 2 and 3 in yellow colour. The boundary of the road has also been shown with red pencil in the map. The suit land is inside the boundary of the road. The order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary also reveals that the compensation was paid and received by Ami Chand and Fateh Singh. No doubt, in the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed for adducing additional evidence in the Lower Appellate Court it has come that Rs.46/- was deposited in State Bank of India at Nahan on 24.4.2012 through Nahan treasury. However, learned Lower Appellate Court being influenced with the factum of Prem Chand, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 was not associated during the acquisition proceedings has dismissed the appeal. 12. Now if coming to substantial questions of law, the suit land has been acquired by defendant No. 1 for being used by the beneficiary i.e. defendant No. 2. It has come in the evidence that the Land Acquisition Collector has passed award No. 60/72 dated 22.4.1972 and also paid the compensation. The evidence further reveals that the suit land in the revenue record was entered in the name of S/Shri Ami Chand and Fateh Chand at the time of its acquisition. Shri Prem Chand, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs never appeared before the Land Acquisition Collector during the course of the proceedings conducted and the notifications issued under the Provisions of the Act. True it is, that while disbursing the compensation, it transpired that one biswa of land out of the acquired land belongs to Prem Chand, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. The compensation i.e. Rs.46/- due and payable in lieu thereof has been deposited in State Bank of India, Nahan branch. True it is, that while disbursing the compensation, it transpired that one biswa of land out of the acquired land belongs to Prem Chand, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. The compensation i.e. Rs.46/- due and payable in lieu thereof has been deposited in State Bank of India, Nahan branch. When the suit land has been acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, both Courts have failed to appreciate the legal position in its right perspective. As a matter of fact, no declaration against the acquisition of the suit land should have been sought by filing the suit. The remedy was available to the plaintiffs under the Act itself. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by both Courts below in its right perspective. 13. As a matter of fact, the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure should have been allowed and the additional evidence taken on record to decide the lis judiciously and effectively. It has, however, not done and the application under Order 41 rule 27 CPC has also been dismissed mechanically and without application of mind. On acquisition of the suit land in accordance with law and the award of just and reasonable compensation, the attestation of mutation No. 142 dated 20.8.1987 in favour of defendant No. 1 and subsequently mutation No. 580 dated 30.6.1992 in favour of defendant No. 2, it is now the appellant-defendant No. 2 owner of the suit land. The plaintiffs are in possession thereof, however, without any right title or interest, hence trespassers. True it is, that even a trespasser cannot also be evicted from the land in his possession save and except under due process of law. As a matter of fact, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade has already initiated the eviction proceedings against the plaintiffs and such proceedings initiated against them on 23.10.1992 have been sought to be declared illegal, null and void. In view of the discussion hereinabove, the said order is absolutely legal and valid and the declaration as sought should have not been granted. Similarly, the plaintiffs are not entitled to perpetual injunction as they are in unlawful possession of the suit land. When they have already been ordered to be evicted by the Compeptent Authority from the suit land the suit for decree of perpetual injunction has also been erroneously decreed. Similarly, the plaintiffs are not entitled to perpetual injunction as they are in unlawful possession of the suit land. When they have already been ordered to be evicted by the Compeptent Authority from the suit land the suit for decree of perpetual injunction has also been erroneously decreed. Having said so, the judgment and decree under challenge is not legally and factually sustainable and as such, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 14. For all the reasons hereinabove, this appeal succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree is quashed and set aside. No order so as to costs. 15. Before parting, this Court would like to observe that the plaintiffs, if so, advised may seek remedy available to them in accordance with law including seeking release of the compensation lying deposited in State Bank of India, Nahan branch through treasury at Nahan. 16. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.