JUDGMENT : The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal assailing judgment and decree passed by the Fast Track Court-III, Shivamogga, in R.A.No.232/2009 dated 30.9.2010, by which, the judgment and decree passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Shimoga, passed in O.S.No.603/2003 has been confirmed. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that the suit property is land bearing Sy.No.228/1 of Harnahalli Village, Shimoga Taluk, measuring East to West 60 feet and North to South 70 feet with construction which measures 50’ x 25’ with RCC roof and kiln shed measuring 20’ x 25’. The plaintiff is the permanent resident of Harnahalli village, Shivamogga Taluk. He is diploma holder from Regional Design Technical Training Centre, Bangalore and Central Village Pottery Institute, Khanapur, Belagam District. The plaintiff is running Terracotta Arts Creation in the suit schedule property. The elders of the Village Panchayath had permitted him to occupy the suit property. He thereafter invested a sum of Rs.50,000/- for development of the suit schedule property by constructing a kiln shed measuring 20’ x 25’. The licence was issued by the Village Panchyath on 9.12.1999 to the plaintiff. In his centre the plaintiff has conducted several exhibitions of his Terracotta Art Creations and has received several certificates recognizing his talent. He has also trained rural unemployed youth. The plaintiff made a representation to the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts) Textile Ministry, Mysore, for grant of suit schedule property in lieu of the services rendered by him. The said representation is pending consideration. But the fourth defendant issued notices dated 31.10.2000 and 1.12.2000 demanding the plaintiff to pay arrears of rentals at the rate of Rs.200/- per month from January 2001. The plaintiff objected to the same and submitted a representation to the third defendant i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga District, requesting for setting aside the demand notices issued by the fourth defendant which is pending consideration. On the basis of the letter of the Taluk Surveyor dated 14.2.2001, the Deputy Commissioner wrote to the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Division stating that the plaintiff is an unauthorized occupant of the suit property, in response to which, the executive engineer opined that the suit schedule property belong to the Housing Board and the same was handed over to the P.W.D and the plaintiff was occupying and residing in the suit property for the last 10 years. According to the plaintiff, he is residing there more than 15 years and he is entitled for regularization of his unauthorized occupation. 3. When the matter stood thus, the second respondent issued show cause notice dated 30.10.2003 to the plaintiff to explain as to why he should not be vacated, in response to which, he submitted a representation on 4.11.2003. According to the plaintiff, the second defendant has no locus standi to issue notice or to take steps for eviction of the plaintiff. That the show cause notice issued by the second defendant is infructuous as the plaintiff is in unauthorized occupation of the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit contending that he was the absolute owner and in possession by adverse possession and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. 4. In response to the suit summons court notices, the Government Pleader appeared on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and filed his written statement denying the plaint averments and admitting issue of notice to the plaintiff. It was contended that the suit schedule property is teachers’ quarters and the plaintiff was in unauthorized occupation of Government land under the control of the second defendant and therefore the second defendant was empowered to evict the plaintiff under eviction of unauthorised occupants Act. That the plaintiff had not paid rents as prescribed in law and liable to be evicted from the suit schedule property in accordance with the procedure. The plaintiff had no locus standi to seek reliefs in respect of the suit schedule property and also to reside in the said property as they are meant for accommodating teachers. It was contended that there was no cause of action to file the suit and that the relief sought by the plaintiff could not be granted and that the suit was not maintainable, as the plaintiff had not complied with Section.80 of CPC, as no notice was issued to the defendants. That the suit property was handed over to the Karnataka Housing Board by the Government for construction of quarters and that the second defendant had acknowledged the handing over of the quarters. In the circumstances, the second defendant was the authority to initiate eviction proceedings against the plaintiff who was in unauthorized occupation. Therefore, the defendants sought dismissal of the suit. 5. In the circumstances, the second defendant was the authority to initiate eviction proceedings against the plaintiff who was in unauthorized occupation. Therefore, the defendants sought dismissal of the suit. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed following issues for its consideration; (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that 4th defendant Village Panchayath, Harnahalli issued general license to him in respect of suit schedule property? (2) Whether plaintiff proves that plaintiff has been in authorized occupation and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for more than 12 years? (3) Whether the defendant proves that the suit schedule property is a teacher quarters belonging to the Government? (4) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff is in unauthorized possession of the suit schedule property? (5) Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit? (6) What order or decree? “ 6. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and three witnesses were examined as P.W.2 to P.W.4. He produced twenty two documents which were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P22, while the defendants examined two witnesses and they produced four documents which were marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4. On the basis of the said evidence, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.1, 2 and 5 in the negative; issue Nos. 3 and 4 in the affirmative, issue No.6 as “does not arise for consideration” and dismissed the suit. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 5.2.2008, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, plaintiff preferred R.A.No. 232/2009 before the First Appellate Court, which on hearing the respective parties framed the following points for its consideration; (1) Whether the plaintiff proved that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property being an authorized occupant of the plaint schedule property for more than 12 years and thereby perfected his title over the plaint schedule property by way of adverse possession? (2) Whether the plaintiff further proved that he is in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of suit? (3) Whether the plaintiff further proved the alleged interference of the defendants as stated in the plaint? (4) Whether the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 r/w Sec.151 of CPC deserves to be allowed? (5) Whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court calls for any interference by this Court? (6) What Order or Decree? (3) Whether the plaintiff further proved the alleged interference of the defendants as stated in the plaint? (4) Whether the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 r/w Sec.151 of CPC deserves to be allowed? (5) Whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court calls for any interference by this Court? (6) What Order or Decree? The First Appellate Court answered issue Nos.1 to 5 in the negative and dismissed the appeal by concurring with the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court confirming the judgment of the Trial Court, plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. He contended that the courts below were not right in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property for about 10-15 years. That the defendant had issued a licence to the plaintiff to have his Terracotta Arts Creation Centre in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff had made a representation for grant of the suit property to him. When the matter stood thus, notices dated 31.10.2000 and 1.12.2000 and subsequent notice dated 30.10.2003 were issued by the second defendant to him. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. The courts below have not appreciated the evidence produced by the plaintiff, but erroneously dismissed the suit. He contended that the appeal gives raise to substantial question of law and therefore the appeal may be admitted for a detailed hearing. He also submitted that the plaintiff being in possession of the suit schedule property could be vacated only in accordance with law and not otherwise. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and on perusal of the material on record, at the outset it is noted that the suit filed by the plaintiff is wholly misconceived as the plaintiff has sought a declaration that he is absolute owner of the suit schedule property on the basis of his adverse possession. It is an admitted fact that the suit schedule property belongs to the defendants who are the authorities of the State Government. It is an admitted fact that the suit schedule property belongs to the defendants who are the authorities of the State Government. If at all, the plaintiff claims that he has come into possession of the suit property without permission of the defendants, then he should have been in possession of the suit property for at least 30 years in order to claim a judgment and decree of adverse possession as against the defendants State and other authorities. On the other hand, if he claims that the defendants had permitted the plaintiff to occupy the suit schedule property, then in that case, adverse possession as claimed by the plaintiff would not arise at all. The courts below on considering the evidence on record held that the plaintiff was not in lawful possession and is an unauthorised occupant of the suit schedule property. In the circumstances, the Trial Court declined to grant any relief to the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence has held that the plaintiff had not proved that he could be granted a decree as he had not let in any evidence to the effect that he was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property nor had he perfected his title over suit property by adverse possession. As he was not in lawful possession of the suit schedule property, there was no illegal interference on the part of the defendants and that the judgment and decree of the trial court would not call for any interference. 11. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The First Appellate Court dismissed the application seeking permission to produce additional evidence as the said application did not comply with the conditions mentioned under order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the First Appellate Court confirming the judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. In my view, no substantial question of law would arise in this appeal. 13. Appeal is dismissed.