JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on point of admission of second appeal and perused the records. It appears that on the basis of admitted facts, this appeal may be decided at this stage. Therefore it is accordingly decided. 2. In Original Suit No. 1184/2002 (Prem Prakash Sharma v. Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad & another), plaint case in brief was that earlier owner of disputed land was Kishan Lal, but plaintiffs had occupied the said land about 28-29 years ago and had raised his construction and boundary wall over it. From then he is continuing in his open adverse possession over this property. Said Kishan Lal had accepted the adverse possession of plaintiff and had not initiated any legal proceeding against him. But in year 1985, and then in May, 2002 the officials of defendant U.P. Awas Evan Vikas Parishad had threatened the plaintiff to demolish his constructions and take its possession forcibly. Therefore he has filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the construction of plaintiff and interfering in his peaceful possession. 3. The defendants has filed written-statements in original suit, by which plaint case was denied and it was further pleaded that plaintiff has no right or concern with the disputed property. His suit is barred by Section 86 of U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Act. In their additional written-statement filed in first appeal, the defendant had pleaded that there was only one kachcha kotha on the disputed property and no pakka construction over it, which was unauthorized, which was removed by the defendants. The defendants are owner in possession of whole of the disputed property. The plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of disputed property and defendants have right to allot this property to any other person. Therefore the suit of plaintiff is liable to dismissed. 4. After accepting the adduced evidences and affording opportunity of hearing, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.-3, Meerut had dismissed the original suit, with finding that in the matters relating to proceedings under CPC the acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged and the suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable against the acquisition proceedings. The trial court had held that this disputed property had been acquired by the defendants. The trial court had held that this disputed property had been acquired by the defendants. The trial court had also held that from the evidences, it is proved that plaintiff had entered into an agreement to sell with Kishan Lal, by which Kishan Lal had agreed to sell this disputed property to him. Therefore, the possession of plaintiff is on basis of permission of Kishan Lal and it is not an adverse possession as pleaded in plaint; therefore the plaint case is not proved. Since plaintiff has failed to prove his adverse possession, therefore his suit is not maintainable. On these grounds, the trial court has dismissed the original suit. 5. Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2012 (Prem Prakash Sharma v. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad & Another) was preferred against the judgment of appellate court by the plaintiff of the original suit, which was heard and decided on 20.11.2015 by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.-10, Meerut. In this judgment the first appellate court has held that the possession of defendants over the disputed property was taken during the pendency of suit, which cannot be treated as legal possession. Since no award has been passed during the proceedings of acquisition of land in suit, therefore the said acquisition is not effective and complete; therefore the judgment of trial court is legally not maintainable. With these findings the first appellate court had allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the original suit and directed the defendants not to interfere in peaceful possession of disputed land and not to allot it to any other person and not to raise any new construction over it. 6. Against the judgment of the first appellate court, the present second appeal has been preferred by defendants to the original suit. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that lower appellate court had not framed any point of determination under Order-41, Rule-31 CPC and passed the erroneous judgment. He further contended that trial court had specifically held, citing law and rulings, that the acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged in suits proceeded in accordance with CPC and acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged in suit permanent injunction; but this very important point was ignored by the lower appellate court without any reason; and also the finding of non-maintainability of suit was not reversed at the time of allowing the appeal. He further contended that plaintiff had filed suit on basis of alleged perfected rights due to adverse possession against Kishan Lal, but during evidence he had admitted to have entered into registered agreement to sell disputed property with Kishan Lal and entered in possession on basis of permission of Kishan Lal; therefore his case of adverse possession, on basis of which suit was filed, was not proved. But these facts were not considered by first appellate court at the time of passing the impugned judgment. He further contended that although any of the point pleaded by the plaintiff regarding his right over disputed property is not proved and he is not in possession of the same, therefore, he had no right to get permanent injunction against the defendants, who are true owner of the disputed property. He contended that with this reasons, the judgment of the first appellate court is erroneous and perverse, so the appeal should be allowed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs contended that plaintiffs have now acquired certain right under the new The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and he has right to retain the possession. He further contended that since the plaintiff-respondent has been in possession of disputed property at the time of institution of this suit, therefore, he has right to continue in it's possession. He further contended even if his rightful possession is not proved in that case then he is entitled for permanent injunction on the basis of possessory title, so there is no perversity in judgment of first appellate court and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. A perusal of records reveals that the sole ground for relief sought in plaint is that plaintiff had perfected title over the disputed property by way of adverse possession over it within the knowledge of it's original owner Kishan Lal, and that the defendants have no right or interest in disputed property. During evidences it has been admitted by PW-1 plaintiff that he had entered into a registered agreement to sell with Kishan Lal and obtained possession of this property. Admittedly, no sale-deed was executed by Kishan Lal in favour of plaintiff. Statement of plaintiff as PW-1 proves that his alleged possession is not of nature of adverse possession, but is a permissible possession. Admittedly, no sale-deed was executed by Kishan Lal in favour of plaintiff. Statement of plaintiff as PW-1 proves that his alleged possession is not of nature of adverse possession, but is a permissible possession. Since the pleading of adverse possession is not proved and no sale-deed was executed in favour of plaintiff, therefore the sole basis of right over the disputed property, on basis of which the plaintiff had instituted suit was not proved. This fact was specifically mentioned in judgment of trial court, but for the reasons best known to lower appellate court, this fact does not finds any specific mention in the judgment of first civil appeal no. 24/2012. The lower appeal had decided the civil appeal on basis of issues framed by the trial court, without framing any point of determination in accordance with mandates of Order-41, Rule-31 CPC, and without sufficient reasons assigning for it in its judgment by first appellate court. Either this has been deliberately done by lower appellate court for ignoring the points raised by counsels for the parties during appeal, or the learned Additional District Judge had no proper knowledge of said legal provisions. 10. The trial court specifically discussed the legal provisions and rulings as to why the land acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged in Civil Court and why such proceedings cannot be challenged in suit for permanent injunction; but those findings of trial court were not reversed and were almost deliberately ignored by first appellate court, which is not appreciable. It is not clear that when the judgment of the trial court is based on such specific findings of non-maintainability of suit and there is specific law that the land acquisition proceeding cannot be challenged in regular civil suits, then why such judgment was passed in appeal without going through those provisions and without reversing and upsetting the findings of trial court. 11. It is proved, and also admitted fact during the evidence, that disputed land has been acquired in favour of defendants U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad. It is also settled legal possession that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to quash the acquisition proceedings or declared it as illegal, void or ineffective. 11. It is proved, and also admitted fact during the evidence, that disputed land has been acquired in favour of defendants U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad. It is also settled legal possession that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to quash the acquisition proceedings or declared it as illegal, void or ineffective. Therefore after the acquisition of said property the status of defendants-appellant becomes that of its true owner, and in absence of any other right, the status of plaintiff-respondents becomes that of a trespasser, therefore even if the plaintiff-respondents had the possession of disputed property, he cannot acquire the right to get injunction against true owner, that is defendants-appellants. 12. A trespasser cannot get relief available to owner, against real owner, on the basis of adverse possession. In case of long continuous adverse possession, the owner may be deprived of his legal right to get back his possession from the trespasser because his such right to get such remedy would be time barred. In such circumstances, right of ownership would exist and continue, but his remedy may be barred by law of limitation. In other words long uninterrupted adverse possession of a trespasser may bar the remedy to owner if he seeks it against trespasser after the lapse of period of limitation. In such situation also his right exists but remedy is barred by law of limitation. The unauthorized possessor of any property may have good title against all the other persons but not against the true owner. Therefore, in any case if the trespasser is in wrongful possession, he cannot succeed in the legal proceedings for the relief of declaration or recognition of title in garb of permanent injunction against real owner. Plea of acquiring any right or title of trespasser on basis of adverse possession, against the true owner, can be raised only in defence as defendant. 13. In present case plaintiff-respondents have claimed their right on disputed property as owner, on basis of plea of long adverse possession, which they have failed to prove. Therefore their original suit and the first appeal was rightly dismissed. 14. On the basis of above discussions, it is explicitly clear that judgment of lower appellate court is erroneous and totally perverse without following procedure of law, without appreciating or reversing the judgment of trial court and is without any merit. Therefore their original suit and the first appeal was rightly dismissed. 14. On the basis of above discussions, it is explicitly clear that judgment of lower appellate court is erroneous and totally perverse without following procedure of law, without appreciating or reversing the judgment of trial court and is without any merit. Since these findings of trial court is found correct that plaintiff has failed to prove his case and court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter in hand, therefore the judgment of trial court dismissing the original suit is found correct which is, hereby, confirmed. 15. For the reasons discussed above, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of lower appellate court dated 20.11.2015, passed in Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2012 (Sri Prem Prakash vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad & another), is set aside and said civil appeal is hereby dismissed. 16. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the District Judge, Meerut for communicating it to the Presiding Officer of lower appellate court concerned for future guidance.