JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri B.D. Pandey, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Apoorva Hajela, Advocate for respondent. 2. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has arisen from the judgment and decree dated 07.05.1984 passed by Sri O.P. Srivastava, Civil Judge, Jhansi in Original Suit No. 14 of 1984 (Sri Mohan Ji Gupta and another Vs. State of U.P. and others). 3. This is a defendant's appeal. It was initially decided vide judgment and order dated 02.07.2007, whereagainst appellant preferred Civil Appeal No. 642 of 2016 and Supreme Court vide judgment dated 29.01.2016 has allowed appeal and set aside this Court's judgment dated 02.07.2007 observing that this Court has not decided matter as per requirement of Order 41 Rule 30 C.P.C. by framing point for determination and after appreciation of evidence etc. and thereafter has remanded matter with request to this Court to decide appeal within six months. 4. Plaintiffs-respondents filed Original Suit No. 14 of 1984 stating that they are Bhumidhar of plots No. 1318 and 1319, area 1.05 acre and 1.35 acre respectively, situate at Village Pichor, Tahsil and District Jhansi and same is in their possession. Certain land was acquired by defendant-appellant, i.e., Bundelkhand University by publication of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1894") in U.P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 24.05.1978 for the purpose of raising certain construction but disputed land was not subjected to acquisition under aforesaid notification. Defendant-appellant, however, illegally are trying to raise construction over disputed plots, therefore, an injunction was prayed restraining defendant from raising any construction over plots in dispute or to dispossess plaintiffs-respondents. 5. Suit was contested by appellant by filing written statement in which assertions contained in para 1 of plaint was not admitted for want of knowledge and it is said that plaintiffs are required to prove the facts stated in para 1. With regard to other averments it was stated that plots no. 1318 and 1319 were neither acquired nor any effort was made by defendant-appellant to take possession thereof. 6. With regard to other averments it was stated that plots no. 1318 and 1319 were neither acquired nor any effort was made by defendant-appellant to take possession thereof. 6. In view of aforesaid stand taken by defendant-appellant, Trial Court formulated following five issues: %hnd1%^^1- D;k vkjkth la[;k 1318 o 1319 ftldk {ks=Qy dze'k% 1-05 rFkk 0-30 ,dM+ gS vkSj tks xzke foNksj ijxuk o rglhy >kWalh esa fLFkr gS ij izfroknhx.k vukf/kd`r : i ls dCtk dj jgs gSaA %hnd2% 1. Whether the defendants are taking unauthorised possession of araji nos. 1318 and 1319 situated in village Vichhor, pargana and tehsil Jhansi, measuring 1.05 and 0.30 acres, respectively, in area? %hnd1%2- D;k ;g okn /kkjk 80 lh0ih0lh0 dh uksfVl ds vHkko esa pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA %hnd2% 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the absence of notice u/s 80 of the CPC? %hnd1%3- D;k fookfnr lEifRr ds lEcU/k esa oknh }kjk fn;k x;k fopj.k bruk vi;kZir gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe yksdsV ugha gks ldrh vkSj bl vk/kkj ij okn [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA %hnd2% 3. Whether the details given by the plaintiff in relation to the disputed property is so insufficient that the disputed property cannot be located and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground? %hnd1%4- D;k oknhx.k] izfroknh la[;k&2 ds fo: ) Hkh dksbZ mi'ke ik ldrs gSaA %hnd2% 4. Whether the plaintiffs can obtain any relief also against the defendant No. 2? %hnd1%5- oknh vU; fdlh mi'ke dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA"%hnd2% 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any other relief?" (English translation by the Court) 7 With regard to Issue-1, Trial Court found that there was no dispute with regard to fact that plots no. 1318 and 1319 belong to plaintiffs-respondents and land of defendant-appellant, i.e., University was adjoining the said plots. It also found that defendant-appellant was raising construction of a boundary wall. In order to find out truth, whether disputed plot was attempted by defendant-appellant to be encroached upon by raising construction, an Advocate Commission was appointed, who submitted report verifying that plot no. 1318 to some extent was found encroached and in adjoining land of disputed plots construction was being carried out. Issue-1, therefore, was answered in favour of plaintiffs-respondents. 8. In order to find out truth, whether disputed plot was attempted by defendant-appellant to be encroached upon by raising construction, an Advocate Commission was appointed, who submitted report verifying that plot no. 1318 to some extent was found encroached and in adjoining land of disputed plots construction was being carried out. Issue-1, therefore, was answered in favour of plaintiffs-respondents. 8. Issue-2 was also answered in favour of plaintiffs, and, with regard to Issue-3, Trial Court found that disputed plots were clearly identifiable and it was responsibility of defendant-appellant to ascertain its boundary on the land belong to it before raising construction, and, if there was any dispute with regard to boundary, it could have been settled in accordance with provisions of law. Issue-3 thus was answered in negative. Issue-4 was answered in positive, i.e., in affirmation and Issue-5 was also answered in favour of plaintiffs-respondents. Suit accordingly was decreed granting injunction and restraining defendant-appellant from interfering either by raising unauthorized construction or by dispossession of plaintiffs-respondents over disputed plots. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was no identifiable boundary of disputed land and secondly plaintiffs-respondents were not owner or Bhumidhar of disputed land. 10. Learned counsel appearing for plaintiffs-respondents, on the contrary, sought to support judgment of Court below for the reasons contained therein. 11. In our view following two questions have up for determination to decide this appeal: (I) Whether, plaintiffs-respondents owned disputed plots as claimed in para 1 of plaint? (II) Whether, Trial Court erred in decreeing suit by recording a finding with regard to identification of land, and it is illegal or incorrect or contrary to record? 12. So far as point no. 1 is concerned, we find that specific averment was made by plaintiffs that they are Bhumidhars of disputed land and this fact was not admitted by defendant-appellant only on the ground of lack of information. Defendants-1 and 3, i.e., State of U.P. through Collector and U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited did not raise any dispute regarding the factum that plaintiffs were Bhumidhars of land in question. Revenue Department of State of U.P. maintain revenue record in relation to status of various persons over agricultural land. Thus State of U.P. was competent to reply this aspect and admittedly it did not dispute this assertion of plaintiff. Revenue Department of State of U.P. maintain revenue record in relation to status of various persons over agricultural land. Thus State of U.P. was competent to reply this aspect and admittedly it did not dispute this assertion of plaintiff. Trial Court thus has recorded a finding that there was no dispute that disputed land belong to plaintiffs. Relevant finding of Trial Court reads as under: %hnd1%**bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ fookn ugha fd IykV ua0 1318 o 1319 oknhx.k dk Hkwfe gSA** %hnd2% "It is not disputed that the plot nos. 1318 and 1319 are the lands of the plaintiffs." (English translation by the Court) 13. In absence of any evidence placed before us to show that aforesaid findings recorded by Court below is contrary to record or there was any other material showing that plaintiffs-respondents were not Bhumidhars of land in question, we do not find that finding recorded by Court below in this regard is erroneous or illegal or contrary to record. Question-1, therefore, is answered against defendant-appellant. 14. With regard to second question we find that disputed land at the relevant time was "agricultural land". There was no declaration under Section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. If there was any dispute with regard to boundary, defendant-appellant was entitled to have this matter settled by approaching Revenue Authorities under Section 41 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 but no such steps were taken. On the contrary defendant-appellant proceeded to raise construction without verifying, whether construction is being raised by them on land belong to them and encroached upon the land of plaintiff. Moreover, defendant-appellant's own case is that disputed plots were not acquired and neither they have encroached said land nor raised any construction. In that view of the matter Trial Court has granted injunction which is confined to plots in dispute only. Thus in fact and substance no cause of action has arisen to defendant-appellant to challenge decree passed by Court below. Question-2 hence is also answered in favour of plaintiffs-respondents and against appellant. 15. No other point has been argued. 16. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs throughout.