JUDGMENT : Mr. S.G. Shah, J. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mehul S. Shah with Mr.Yatin Soni, learned advocate for the Appellants and learned Additional Advocate General Mr.P.K. Jani with Ms. Ritu Guru, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent/s. Perused the record of Second Appeal as well as Record & Proceedings of trial Court as well as appellate Court. 2. The Appellants herein are original Plaintiffs before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) of Banaskantha @ Palanpur in Regular Civil Suit No.79 of 1993. Such suit was decreed by judgment and order dated 31.7.1999 in following terms; "The suit of the Plaintiffs is hereby decreed. Permanent injunction as sought below paragraph 8(1) is hereby granted. Further, the relief as prayed in paragraph 8(2) is also granted and it is hereby declared that the act of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to attach the truck of the plaintiff on 9.12.1992 was an illegal act. Further, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover an amount of deposit of Rs. 5,000/- from the defendants. Therefore, defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are hereby directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the Plaintiffs. Further, defendants are hereby directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- by way of damages to the Plaintiffs. Further, defendant Nos. 2 to 4 shall pay the cost of the suit to the Plaintiffs and shall bear their own cost of the suit. A decree be drawn accordingly. So far as application below Exh.38 is concerned, defendant Nos.2 to 4 have committed breach of injunction. Therefore, application below Exh.38 is hereby granted and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are liable to send in civil prison. Therefore, I pass an order to send them in civil prison for 7 days for committing breach of injunction of the order passed below Exh.5 by the present court. Hence, this application is also disposed off accordingly. No order as to cost in respect of the present application." 3. Thereby, when relief was granted in terms of paragraph 8(1) and 8(2) in favour of the plaintiffs, reference to such prayer clause in the plaint is material to be referred and recollected here. Hence, this application is also disposed off accordingly. No order as to cost in respect of the present application." 3. Thereby, when relief was granted in terms of paragraph 8(1) and 8(2) in favour of the plaintiffs, reference to such prayer clause in the plaint is material to be referred and recollected here. Perusal of plaint at Exh.1 confirms that in paragraph 8(1), the Appellants - Plaintiffs have prayed for permanent injunction against the Respondent for restraining the Plaintiffs from excavating the land bearing survey Nos.51/1 and 51/2 admeasuring 4 Hectares and 55 RA, for which lease was granted in favour of the plaintiffs and also to restrain the Respondents from taking away the excavated material/stones in truck and also to restrain the Respondents from seizing all such material and vehicles. 4. In paragraph 8(2), the Appellants - Plaintiffs have prayed for declaration that the act of the Respondents to seize the truck of the Plaintiffs on 9.12.1992 be declared as illegal. 5. In addition to above prayers which was allowed by the trial Court, the Plaintiffs have also prayed in Paragraph 8(3) of the plaint to direct the Respondents to refund the amount of Rs.5,000/paid towards deposit and mesne profit as compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/for not allowing to utilize the leased property since 9.12.1992. Such relief was also granted in favour of plaintiffs. 6. It is undisputed fact that Appellants - Plaintiffs have instituted such suit because they were allotted above referred land on lease by the Collector, Banaskantha @ Palanpur for 10 years from and on 8.4.1992. The leased land is situated at Village Rajkot of Dhanera Taluka in Banaskantha District. The leased agreement was executed between the Plaintiff No.1 and Respondent - Government at Collector Office, Banaskantha @ Palanpur on 8.5.1992. Similar lease agreement was executed in favour of plaintiff No. 2 also on 5.5.1992. Such lease was granted under Gujarat Gau Seva Rules, 1996 and maps of the land which was leased to the plaintiff were attached with agreement of lease. Such maps were certified by the Respondents and were drawn by District Inspector Land Records (For Short `DILR') for the purpose of showing the area of lease portion and it was signed by Collector and it was part and parcel of agreement of lease. Such maps were certified by the Respondents and were drawn by District Inspector Land Records (For Short `DILR') for the purpose of showing the area of lease portion and it was signed by Collector and it was part and parcel of agreement of lease. Possession of the lease land was handed over to the plaintiff by Circle Inspector, Panthavada on 28.5.1992 and, thereby, plaintiff was in possession of the land and he started the work of excavation on the land to take out the stones from both the lease land. The lease rent fixed under the lease agreement was Rs. 20,000/- per annum. Therefore, on payment of RS. 20,000/- per annum by the plaintiff, the Respondents have agreed and handed over the possession of the land in question to the plaintiff so as to allow him to excavate the land for stone and other material. 7. However, on 9.12.1992, defendant Nos.2 and 3 being officers of the Forest Department of the Government had stopped the truck of the plaintiff which carried stones excavated from the lease land and seized the truck at village Deri, Taluka Dhanera at their office. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 kept such truck bearing No. GJ3T6568 with them alongwith materials for nine days and only on 19.12.1992, they released the same against deposit of Rs. 5,000/- from the plaintiff and against the bond for Rs. 1,00,000/-. For such seizure, it was disclosed by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the survey numbers which are allotted by way of lease to the plaintiff belongs to the protected Forest of Bhilachal village. Therefore, as per forest laws, it is an offence. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not ready to consider that infact land has been leased to the plaintiff by the Collector himself. 8. When defendant Nos.2 and 3 restrained the plaintiff from carrying out further excavation and, therefore, plaintiff had to stop their work and addressed a letter to the Collector on 28.1.1993 informing them about the obstruction by the Officers of the Forest Department. On such controversy, Collector has decided to get survey numbers jointly measured and such exercise was carried out on 16.3.1993 by DILR office. At the time of measurement, government surveyor and Circle Inspector, Panchavada were present and boundaries of the land was fixed and it was confirmed that Plaintiffs were carrying their work of excavation on lease land only. On such controversy, Collector has decided to get survey numbers jointly measured and such exercise was carried out on 16.3.1993 by DILR office. At the time of measurement, government surveyor and Circle Inspector, Panchavada were present and boundaries of the land was fixed and it was confirmed that Plaintiffs were carrying their work of excavation on lease land only. Therefore, Collector, Banaskantha @ Palanpur had vide its letter dated 19.4.1993 informed the Plaintiffs about the same and had also informed the Forest Department not to restrain the Plaintiffs from carrying out the excavation. But again on 24.4.1993, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 alongwith their officers informed the Plaintiffs that they will not permit the Plaintiffs to take away the stones from the land and if Plaintiffs will carry out excavation work, their truck and material will be attached and seized and, therefore, Plaintiffs could not carry out the excavation work since then. It is further contended by the Plaintiffs in the suit that for all such five months, Plaintiffs have to pay rent to the government without excavation. It is undisputed fact that even after instructions by the Collector to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to allow the plaintiffs to work on leased land, and not to obstruct the Plaintiffs, the Officers of the Forest Department had continued their obstructions. 9. During the trial of the suit before the Civil Court, the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 had contended that before granting the lease, the Collector has not taken the consent from the Forest Department according to Forest Act. It is also contended that even permission of Central Government is necessary. It is also contended that under the guise of lease of Survey No.51(2), Plaintiffs were entering into survey No. 42(32) admeasuring 2131 acre and 29 Gunthas land which is protected forest and illegally carried out excavation in forest area. It is further contended that the Rajkot village is just adjoining to village Bhilachal where protected forest bearing survey No.104(32) is situated which is of Bhilachal village and protected under Section 30 of Indian Forest Act. It is also contended that by order dated 23.2.1961, the government has declared such area as prohibited area after following due process of law under the Forest Laws and, therefore, nobody is allowed to enter into such area or to take away anything from such area. It is also contended that by order dated 23.2.1961, the government has declared such area as prohibited area after following due process of law under the Forest Laws and, therefore, nobody is allowed to enter into such area or to take away anything from such area. It is also contended that Settlement Officer has separated both the villages and boundaries are fixed and, therefore, though it was crystal clear that the leased land is not situated in forest area, Plaintiffs are; under the pretext of lease of survey No.52(1) entering into survey No. 42(32) and 104(32) and, therefore, they have to take action including seizure of vehicle and goods. 10. Several other technical issues were raised in defence. 11. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) has framed as many as 21 issues and amongst them, most of the issues are in favour of the Plaintiffs so as to confirm that government has allotted a land admeasuring 4 hectares, 51 RA and 15 square meter of survey No. 52/1 and 52/2 with certified map thereof. It is also held by the Civil Court that possession of suit land was handed over to the Plaintiffs by the Circle Inspector and, therefore, Plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land. 12. When all relevant issues were in favour of the Plaintiffs the Civil Court has decreed the suit in aforesaid terms which is reproduced hereinabove. For the purpose, the Civil Court has relied upon the lease agreement by the Collector and maps attached with the lease agreement. 13. Considering the interim relief granted on the date of filing of the suit and breach of such direction by the Court, it seems that the Plaintiffs have filed an application at Exh.38 before the Civil Court under Order 39 - Rule 2(C) for taking action against the erring officers. Such application was ordered to be decided with the suit and, therefore, in final order, such application was also allowed holding that defendant Nos.2 to 4 have committed breach of injunction and, therefore, they were liable to send to civil prison and, therefore, they were ordered to be sent to civil prison for seven days for committing breach of injunction order below Exh.5 by the Court. The Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are, however, not an individual but Deputy Conservator of Forests, Range Forest Officer and The conservator of Forest respectively. The Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are, however, not an individual but Deputy Conservator of Forests, Range Forest Officer and The conservator of Forest respectively. To that extent, though, there was evidence regarding breach of Court's order of injunction, its execution would be difficult even at the time of such decree and more particularly, because order was passed in the year 1999 i.e. before 18 years without confirming that who is to be sent to civil prison. 14. Above referred judgment dated 31.7.1999 in Regular Civil Suit No.79 of 1993 has been challenged by Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and not only by the State of Gujarat through the Collector by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.62 of 1999 before the District Court of Banaskantha @ Palanpur, wherein, by judgment and order dated 31.1.2000, the Assistant Judge has while allowing the appeal dismissed the suit of the Appellants - Plaintiffs by setting aside the judgment dated 31.7.1999 by the Civil Court. The appellate Court has also quashed and set aside the order below Exh.38 by same judgment and order dated 31.7.1999. 15. While allowing the appeal, the appellate Court has reversed the finding of fact, recorded by the Civil Court that excavation work being carried out in survey Nos.51/1, 51/2 and 53 whereby trial Court has held that Plaintiffs were excavating only in those survey numbers. Thereby, Appellate Court has held that excavation work was being carried out in survey No.104/32 which issue was held in negative by the trial Court. Similarly, Appellate Court has held that the trial Court has erred in holding the respective defendants for committing contempt of Court which is practically breach of an order of injunction. Whereas, rest of the technical issue regarding statutory notice, maintainability of suit etc. are not disturbed by the Appellate Court and held in favour of the original plaintiffs. 16. Thereby, now the core issue which emerges from the impugned judgment in appeal and judgment of the trial Court is practically based upon the determination of facts when both the Courts' below have held it differently. To be precise, the trial Court has after appreciating the evidence before it held that Appellants - Plaintiffs were excavating land of revenue survey Nos.52/1, 52/2 and 53 of village Rajkot in Dhanera Taluka of the District Banaskantha @ Palanpur. Whereas, the Appellate Court has held that Appellants - Plaintiffs were excavating survey No.104/32 of village Bhilachal. To be precise, the trial Court has after appreciating the evidence before it held that Appellants - Plaintiffs were excavating land of revenue survey Nos.52/1, 52/2 and 53 of village Rajkot in Dhanera Taluka of the District Banaskantha @ Palanpur. Whereas, the Appellate Court has held that Appellants - Plaintiffs were excavating survey No.104/32 of village Bhilachal. It is undisputed fact that there is no common boundary between these two sets of survey numbers i.e. on one hand survey No.52/1, 52/3 and 53 and on other hand, survey No.104. 17. The situation is arising because of improper evaluation and relying upon a particular map by the Appellate Court which was never proved before the trial Court and infact it was prepared by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 only without the knowledge of the Plaintiffs and DILR so also defendant No.1 State of Gujarat, through Collector. 18. Unfortunately, though the trial Court has discussed the evidence in detail, the Appellate Court has, in its short judgment relied upon a document which is not proved before the Trial Court, for coming to the conclusion that excavation work was carried out in survey No.104/32. 19. Surprisingly, though the Appellate Court has considered the following facts as admitted and proved, relying upon an unproved excavation work going on in forest land bearing survey No.104/32, but, even while doing so, the appellate Court has no option but to add the version of the Appellants - Plaintiffs that possession of such land is handed over by Circle Inspector of Panchavada and it is belonging to village Rajkot and having survey No.52/1, 52/2 and 53. Those admitted facts by Appellate Court as quoted in Paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment are as under: "1. The plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are allotted a lease by the Collector, B.K. Dist. for a period of 10 years from 8.4.1992 as per Exh.104 and 111 to excavate the mines from a land revenue survey No.53 paiki 2 hector and survey No.52/1 and 52/2, 4 hector, 51 R.A. 15 Sq. Mtr. Of village Rajkot, Tal.Dhanera. 2. A lease deed is executed by the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 as per Exh.110 and 112. 3. As per Exh.110 and 112, boundary of village Bhilachal is towards eastern side of lease land. 4. Mtr. Of village Rajkot, Tal.Dhanera. 2. A lease deed is executed by the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 as per Exh.110 and 112. 3. As per Exh.110 and 112, boundary of village Bhilachal is towards eastern side of lease land. 4. Survey No.104/32 of village Bhilachal is declared as a forest land under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act vide Notification produced at Exh.153. 5. A root cause for the suit arises from the incident dated 9.12.1992 when the Forest Officer prevented the Plaintiffs from excavating a mines and detailed a truck No.GJ-3T-6568 on the ground that the Plaintiffs are doing excavation work in forest land, survey No.104/32 of village Bhilachal (Mala Bhakharawada). 6. The forest authority has issued a notice to the person concerned under the provisions of Indian Forest Act and also filed FIR as per Exh.155. 7. As per panchakyas dated 10.12.1992 at Exh.156 according to the forest department, the Plaintiffs are doing excavation work in forest land, survey No.104/32, while according to the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, possession of this land is handed over by Circle Inspector, Panthwada and the land is belonging to the village Rajkot, survey No.52/1, 52/2 and survey No.53. 20. Though the Appellate Court has made a reference of documentary evidence said to have been produced by the Forest Department at Exhs.153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 163, 164, 165 and 171; the reference of such documents makes it clear that Exh.153 is government notification disclosing the survey No.104/32 as notified area under the Act, and survey No.104/32 has no boundary with survey No.52/1. Similarly, Exh.154 is Gamthal map of Moje Bhilachal which also confirms that the boundary of survey No.52 is nowhere touching to survey No.104 and, therefore, there is least chance of shifting of place or encroachment as alleged by the Respondents. But unfortunately, the place of excavation is shown on other hand of the survey numbers crossing the entire width from survey No.52 which is practically not possible. Whereas, Exh.156 is a Panchnama regarding seizure of truck of the Plaintiffs and on the contrary there is disclosure in Panchnama that excavation is carried out in the land of survey No.52/1 and 2. Exh.155 is intimation regarding such seizure. Exh.157 is again notification regarding restriction of powers of any officer with reference to forest land without express permission by Central Government. Exh.155 is intimation regarding such seizure. Exh.157 is again notification regarding restriction of powers of any officer with reference to forest land without express permission by Central Government. Exh.163 and 164 is a letter by Collector, Banaskantha @ Palanpur to the Superintendent of DILR for preparing a fresh map. Exh.165 is a letter by Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to Collector conveying that land where excavation is carried out falls in survey No.104/32. Entire dispute raised at such end that though there is no map at Exh.154 and though map is to be drawn jointly by Revenue Authorities and Forest Department as per Exhs. 163 and 164, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have prepared a map independently and produced it with their letter dated 17.4.1995 i.e. Exh. 165 and 171 and though such map is not properly exhibited and proved on record, only because there is reference of such map in Exhs. 165 and 171 and probably though such map was not confirming the correct position, the Appellate Court has relied upon such map and came to the conclusion that land which is being excavated falls within survey No. 104/32 while allowing the appeal and, thereby, dismissed the suit which was decreed in favour of the Appellants. 21. Therefore, while admitting such appeal, a substantial question of law as under was framed: "Whether it is open to the Court to cancel the lease of the land not falling within the forest area on the ground that the lease holder has travelled beyond the lease _______ and committed a wrong in forest area." It is also recorded, while framing such law point on 17.1.2001, that the learned advocate representing the Appellants does not press this appeal so far as it relates to the order passed below the application at Exh.38. 22. Therefore, at this stage, the scope of the appeal is limited to the above referred law point only. 23. However, if we peruse the record of appeal, it transpires that by order dated 19.9.2013, the coordinate bench has passed following order which discloses all the proposed question of law also. "1. The applicants original Appellants have filed this application in which they have proposed certain questions of law by submitting that they arise in the matter as substantial questions of law. It is prayed that the following questions may be formulated and incorporated in the second appeal. "1. The applicants original Appellants have filed this application in which they have proposed certain questions of law by submitting that they arise in the matter as substantial questions of law. It is prayed that the following questions may be formulated and incorporated in the second appeal. (A) Whether lower appellate court was justified in relying upon non exhibited document viz. map dated 27.03.1995 which was not proved by defendants in the Trial Court. (B) Whether the lower appellate court has jurisdiction to rely upon map dated 27.03.1995 which was prepared by the defendants in violation of order passed below Exh. 24. (C) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in observing that ...however, inspite this position, the Ld. Trial Judge has held that the Plaintiffs are not doing excavation in forest land which is totally against the findings on record and the finding of the Additional Trial Judge appear to be perverse and bad in law...... (D) Whether the present appellant has done excavation work on leaseland or in the forest land has to be decided on the basis of proved evidence on record. By not doing so, whether the lower appellate court is justified in setting aside the finding of the trial court. (E) When there are two sets of evidence viz. Two maps and panchnama, one is prepared as per the courts order and the other is prepared by defendants exparte, which map and report should have more evidence value. (F) The map Ex. 154 produced by the defendants and not proved during the course of evidence, whether it has more evidence value and in more than reliable than the map Ex. 173 and Ex. 122 and panchnana Ex. 122 and Ex. 121. (G) Whether trial court has committed an error in allowing the suit. (H) Whether the lower appellate court is justified in ignoring the material necessary, relevant and proved evidence that too without giving or assigning any reason and setting aside the order passed by the trial court. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah with learned advocate Mr. Yatin Soni for the applicants and learned AGP Mr. Rahul Dave for the Respondents. 3. The Second Appeal No. 54 of 2000 in respect of which the aforesaid new questions are proposed as substantial questions of law has already been admitted. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah with learned advocate Mr. Yatin Soni for the applicants and learned AGP Mr. Rahul Dave for the Respondents. 3. The Second Appeal No. 54 of 2000 in respect of which the aforesaid new questions are proposed as substantial questions of law has already been admitted. At the time of admission of the said appeal, this court has framed the substantial question of law. When the appeal is admitted on the substantial questions of law and the same is pending for final hearing, at this stage, new questions suggested can not be permitted to be incorporated as new substantial questions of law. Whether these questions arise as substantial questions of law within the compass of the matter, may be considered at the time of hearing. It may be true that the Appellants are entitled to urge that other questions of law than the one formulated, also arise as substantial questions of law, however, the same can very well be pressed into service at the time of hearing. 4. Therefore, this application is disposed of by observing that the applicants Appellants shall not be precluded from submitting that any other substantial questions of law also arise other than the one formulated. If the prayer, as prayed for, in this civil application is pressed in course of hearing, it shall be considered in accordance with law as regards to the facts and the controversy involved in the matter after giving an opportunity to the other side." 24. Therefore, matter is argued at length by both the sides on all issues including consideration of above referred additional questions of law though it is mixed question of law and facts. However, the fact remains that now it is quite clear from record that the Appellate Court has though maps at Exh.154 and map which is referred in Exh.165 are not properly proved on record, concluded to allow the appeal. When it is fairly correct that Appellate Court has relied upon documents which are not proved on record, then by all means, the impugned order in appeal needs to be interfered with. 25. When it is fairly correct that Appellate Court has relied upon documents which are not proved on record, then by all means, the impugned order in appeal needs to be interfered with. 25. In view of above clarity, to find out way out so as to redress the grievance of the Appellants and to put an end to such a dispute which is pending since the year 1993 and dragged before the High Court where it is pending for last 16 years, an attempt was made by several orders to get correct picture on record. For the purpose, several directions were issued by order dated 22.3.2016, 5.5.2016 and 10.1.2017. During such exercise, different maps have been drawn by competent authorities and placed on record. However, ultimately, there is no consensus between the parties to resolve the dispute amicably either outside the Court or even by intervention of the Court to see that when Plaintiffs have been allocated the land by the Collector himself and that too executing a lease deed on accepting rent and more particularly when that survey No.52/1 and 52/2 is not forming part of the forest land or survey No.104/32, if suitable land is allocated to the Plaintiffs even today. However, government has failed to consider such aspect mainly because of the reasons that now pursuant to the policy decision by the government and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to such excavation activity that it cannot be permitted arbitrarily and by administrative order only without calling bids and so far as forest land is concerned, there is absolute ban to carry out any excavation or any other activity to collect and take away any forest produce. 26. Therefore, now, the only option remains is to decide the appeal on its own merits. In that case, as already discussed hereinabove, there is primafacie, evidence on record i.e. impugned order that the Appellate Court has, for arriving at the conclusion of allowing the appeal, relied upon the documentary evidence which was either not proved at all or not properly proved and though it was not properly provided, it was accepted on record and relied upon. 27. Thereby, there is a situation where on factual aspects, both the Courts' below i.e. Civil Court as well as Appellate Court have arrived at different conclusion. 27. Thereby, there is a situation where on factual aspects, both the Courts' below i.e. Civil Court as well as Appellate Court have arrived at different conclusion. Therefore, at present, there is no case of concurrent findings of facts by both the Courts' below which may results into an absolute ban of jurisdiction in Second Appeal so as to disturb the impugned judgment, when it is primafacie proved on record that documentary evidence which was not properly proved is relied upon by the Appellate Court. 28. In view of above facts and circumstances, the appeal needs to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment in Regular Civil Appeal No.62 of 1999 by the Assistant Judge, Banaskantha @ Palanpur. Once appeal is allowed, the judgment of Civil Court would automatically stand restored. However, considering the facts and circumstances emerging from the record, it seems that execution of such judgment would not be easy and may raise certain more issues. Therefore, considering the fact that practically the dispute needs to be resolved and not the litigation only, appropriate determination is required to be see that there may not be multi litigation or frustration of legal right of the either party. For the purpose, the issues raised by order dated 19.9.2013 needs to be answered as under: (A) The Appellate Court is not justified in relying upon non exhibited document viz. map dated 27.03.1995. (B) The Appellate Court has no jurisdiction to rely upon such unproved document. (C) The factual determination by Appellate Court is against the evidence on record. (D) If factual determination is in favour of plaintiff then judgment of trial Court cannot be set aside. (E) Out of two set of documents, particularly map, the documents and map prepared pursuant to the direction of the Court needs to be relied upon against the document prepared by defendants exparte on their own. (F) Exh.154 may not have more evidentiary value then Exh.121, 122 and 173 because Exh.154 is prepared exparte by defendant on its own whereas rest of the documents are prepared in presence of all the parties and as per direction of the Court. (G) Trial Court has not committed any error in allowing the suit. (H) The Appellate Court has ignored the material, relevant and proven evidence without assigning any reasons and relied upon unproved documents. 29. (G) Trial Court has not committed any error in allowing the suit. (H) The Appellate Court has ignored the material, relevant and proven evidence without assigning any reasons and relied upon unproved documents. 29. In view of above findings and issue of law point which was framed while admitting the appeal can certainly be answered to the effect that it is not open for the Appellate Court to cancel the lease of the land not following within forest area only on the ground that the lease holder has travelled beyond the leased area and committed a wrong in forest area, more particularly, based upon a document which is created exparte by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 alone and not proved on record in accordance with law. 30. The overall evidence and record certainly confirms that there is a dispute between two departments of the government viz; Collector on one hand and Forest Department on the other hand, however, for such internal dispute between two departments, appellants lease holders cannot be saddled with a situation where their properties was seized and they were restrained from executing the activity as per lease agreement executed by the Collector himself. In such situation, it is for the government to resolve their internal dispute between their different departments and if at all it is found that someone has acted beyond his jurisdiction then government should initiate appropriate proceedings against that Officer. However, in that case government has to make give the position of the third party being present appellants by appropriate orders or atleast by payment of compensation and revision of rent of the leased land. 31. Though long time has passed from the date of lease and from the date of impugned judgment and thereby though remanding back the Regular Civil Appeal may not be advisable considering the fact that if appeal is allowed because it was decided on documents which are not proved then it would result into decree in favour of the Plaintiffs as per judgment of Civil Court dated 31.7.1999. However, one of the direction of such decree regarding an order below Exh.38 has already been dropped by the Plaintiffs in this appeal and, therefore, allowing appeal would result into restoring all the directions by the judgment of the trial Court dated 31.7.1999. However, one of the direction of such decree regarding an order below Exh.38 has already been dropped by the Plaintiffs in this appeal and, therefore, allowing appeal would result into restoring all the directions by the judgment of the trial Court dated 31.7.1999. But in any case, considering the over all development till date, at present, it would be difficult to execute such decree of the Civil Court and, therefore, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned judgment dated 31.1.2000 with direction to remand Regular Civil Appeal No.62 of 1999 to the District Court, Banaskantha @ Palanpur for deciding it afresh based upon the observations made hereinabove and to find out the suitable order that can be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs - Appellants. 32. There is reason to observe and direct above because, at present, again there is an issue regarding identification of land which was actually leased in favour of the Plaintiffs and pursuant to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, now, fresh lease cannot be executed. Therefore, if necessary, the Appellate Court or the trial Court may arrange for local inspection of the place. As against that, Plaintiffs may seek alternative relief in the plaint regarding compensation etc. if so advise. 33. In view of above, the legal issue raised by Respondents regarding maintainability of appeal are now not material except to recollect that Appellants are relying upon following citations: [1] State Bank of India & Ors. v. S.N. Goyal reported in AIR 2008 SC 2594 [2] Umerkhan v. Bismillabi reported in AIR 2012 SC 1646 [3] U.R. Virupakshaiah v. Sarvamma & Anr reported in AIR 2009 SC 1481 [4] Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal reported in AIR 2000 SC 426 [5] Abdul Raheem v. Karnataka Electricity Board reported in AIR 2008 SC 956 [6] State of Bihar & Ors v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr. reported in AIR 2000 SC 2306 . 34. In view of above facts and circumstances, at present, there is no option but to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 31.1.2000 in Regular Civil Appeal No.62 of 1999 and to remand such appeal to the District Court for deciding it afresh in accordance with law and observations made hereinabove. 35. 34. In view of above facts and circumstances, at present, there is no option but to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 31.1.2000 in Regular Civil Appeal No.62 of 1999 and to remand such appeal to the District Court for deciding it afresh in accordance with law and observations made hereinabove. 35. If necessary, documents and pleadings pursuant to exercise carried out by this Court during last one year, may be forwarded to the Appellate Court for further consideration. For the purpose, either of the party may file appropriate note. 36. In view of disposal of main matter i.e. Second Appeal No.54 of 2000, connected Civil Applications and Misc. Civil Application also stand disposed of. Mr. Yatin Soni, learned advocate for the Appellants and Mr. Swapneshwar Gautam, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent/s have requested to direct the Appellate Court to decide the appeal in stipulated time period considering the fact that the matter is pending for more than two decades. In view of such request, the Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal on or before 31.12.2017. Parties shall cooperate the Appellate Court to comply with such directions. Petition Dismissed.