JUDGMENT Prakash Gupta, J. - This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16th April, 2009 passed in Civil Regular Appeal No.52/2008 (36/2003) by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Bharatpur, head quarter at Deeg (hereinafter referred to ''the lower appellate court'') whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiffs-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 22nd May, 2003 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) City, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as ''the trial court'') in Civil Suit No.64/1994 was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was confirmed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the original plaintiff Phooli Ram @ Mooliram filed a suit for permanent injunction wherein it is stated that the property described in para No.3 of the plaint and marked as ''ABCDE'' belongs to the plaintiff on which he had constructed four shops and the plaintiff is in possession over the for last 40 years. The said construction of shops was carried out by him after obtaining sanction dated 2nd January, 1990 from the Municipal Board, Nagar. The defendants threatened the plaintiff to dispossess him from the disputed land and demolition of the construction raised by him on the disputed land. Hence, it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed for permanent injunction against the defendants. 3. The suit was resisted by defendants Nos. 5 and 6 by filing written statements wherein it is stated that the construction which was raised was contrary to the sanction dated 2nd January, 1990 and the same was lateron cancelled. The plaintiff is neither having any title nor legal possession on the disputed land. The land measuring 13 feet x 57 feet upon which construction was raised is a government land. 4. The learned trial court framed as many as 7 issues. On the issues both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. 5. Learned trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 2nd May, 2003 dismissed the suit against which, appeal was filed before the lower appellate court by the plaintiffs-appellants which was also came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16th April, 2009. 6. Hence, the present appeal. 7. It is submitted by Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants that it is proved by evidence that the appellants are in settled possession. 6. Hence, the present appeal. 7. It is submitted by Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants that it is proved by evidence that the appellants are in settled possession. Therefore, they cannot be dispossessed without following the due process of law. The construction was raised by the original plaintiff after obtaining sanction from the Municipal Board, Nagar. There is no evidence on record to show that the disputed land is a government land. 8. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants, I find no merit in this appeal. In support of the ocular evidence of the plaintiff, no documentary evidence with regard to the long and settled possession has been produced by the plaintiff. This Court is of the considered view that only on the basis of the sanction given by the Municipal Board, no title or legal possession of the plaintiff on the disputed land can be inferred. It is revealed from the record that the plaintiff, in his crossexamination admitted that proceedings under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act were initiated against him. This fact also shows that the plaintiff is a trespasser. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff has neither any title nor any legal possession on the disputed land. Being a concurrent finding of fact, this Court cannot interfere in the same while exercising jurisdiction under section 100 CPC. No question of law much less any substantial question of law, is involved in this appeal. Hence, the same is, dismissed at the admission stage.