JUDGMENT : Ramchandra Singh Jhala, J. 1. The instant second appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 21.4.2000 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Ganganagar in Appeal (Decree) No. 11/1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate court') whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 3.3.1999 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Suratgarh, District Sri. Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 43/89 was confirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff deceased Mohan Lal (father of respondents No. 1 and 2 and husband of respondent No. 3) filed a suit for permanent injunction stating therein that he has a plot measuring 825 sq. fts. situated at Bikaner Road which is pattasud land and when he started construction over the said land, the appellant-defendant interrupted in construction, therefore, the late Mohan Lal filed a suit to restrain the appellant-defendants from interfering in the construction work. 3. The appellant-defendant filed written statements wherein they denied all the facts of the plaint and it is stated that the land in question was a part of the PWD land and since the construction raised by the plaintiffs was unauthorised, the same was rightly removed. It is also stated that upon the said land, residential houses of IIIrd grade were constructed and for the same lay out plan had been sanctioned by the Deputy Town Planner on 10.9.1976. The plaintiffs were never in possession of the said land. Earlier also encroachment was made over the said land by the respondent-plaintiffs, but the same was removed by the competent authority, however, due to holidays on 8.10.1989 to 10.10.1989, the plaintiff Mohan Lal raised unauthorised occupation which was rightly demolished and prayed to dismiss the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiffs. 4. Earlier also encroachment was made over the said land by the respondent-plaintiffs, but the same was removed by the competent authority, however, due to holidays on 8.10.1989 to 10.10.1989, the plaintiff Mohan Lal raised unauthorised occupation which was rightly demolished and prayed to dismiss the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiffs. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:- ¼1½ vk;k IykV la[;k&37 bZ tks oknh dks vkaofVr Fkk] xSaxgV foJke x`g oŒlkŒfuŒfoŒ DokVjksa ds chp iM+rh gS blfy;s dCtk ugha fn;k x;kA ¼2½ vk;k oknh us tks rkehj btktr izkIr dh gS og uxjikfydk dks /kks[kk nsdj izkIr dh gSa vxj ,slk gS rks mldk okn ij D;k vlj gS\ ¼3½ vk;k oknh ds IykV ij ml }kjk fd;s fuekZ.k dks izfroknh }kjk rksM+ nsus ds dkj.k oknh dk okn gks x;k gS vkSj og fpj fu"ks/kkKk ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA ¼4½ vk;k oknh fpj fu"ks/kkKk bl vej dk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd izfroknh mlds iV~Vk'kqnk Hkw[kaM+ ij nhokj cukdj ;k vU; fdlh rjg ls O;o/kku mRiUu u djs\ ¼5½ vuqrks"k\ 5. Vide judgment and decree dated 3.3.1999, the learned trial court decided all the issues in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants and decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs and appellant-defendants were restrained from interfering in the construction which was being raised by the respondent-plaintiffs. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 3.3.1999, the appellant-defendants filed appeal before the learned first appellate court, who dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 21.4.2000. 6. Being aggrieved with the said judgments and decrees of both the courts below, the appellant-defendant has preferred the present second appeal before this Court. 7. This Court on 28.3.2006 while admitting the instant second appeal framed the following substantial questions of law:- "(1) Whether the trial court committed serious error of law by framing issue regarding the plaintiff's title despite the fact that the defendants categorically in para No. 11 of the written statement denied the title of the plaintiff and also pleaded the specific fact that the land was reserved for some government building? (2) Whether the courts below committed error of law in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in the facts of the case particularly in view of the defence that the construction of the plaintiff was removed by the Municipal Board?" 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are contrary to law and facts. The learned courts below have committed serious error of law in passing the impugned judgments and decrees and same are erroneous and against the settled principles of law. The issues have wrongly been decided in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs. It is submitted that the land in dispute had never been allotted to the deceased Mohan Lal (plaintiff) nor it is proved that any patta was issued in the year 1961 by the Municipality pertaining to this land. It is contended that both the courts below have committed an error in appreciating the earlier attempts made by the respondent-plaintiffs for encroachment upon the land in dispute. They were dealt with under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act and unauthorised occupation was removed and when the said matter was raised before the Grievance Committee, it was found to be devoid of merit. The conclusion of both the courts below is based on surmises and conjectures. 10. It is also contended that the courts below have erred in law and facts in considering the fact that the patta is allegedly said to be issued in the year 1961 and strangely plaintiffs claimed that the possession could be given and surprisingly they kept silence for years together. Thus, the finding of the learned courts below on issues No. 1 and 2 are erroneous and laconic. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has contended that the courts below have erred in law and facts in deciding the issues No. 3 and 4 and the finding is highly erroneous and wrong inasmuch as even the authority in giving the permission has been examined as witness. 12. Learned courts below have also committed serious error of law in considering the possession of the appellant-department, whereas from the record, and statements of Ram Pyara and others, it is proved that the PWD is in possession of the said land. 13. 12. Learned courts below have also committed serious error of law in considering the possession of the appellant-department, whereas from the record, and statements of Ram Pyara and others, it is proved that the PWD is in possession of the said land. 13. In view of above arguments learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has prayed that this second appeal may kindly be allowed and judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below may be quashed and set aside. 14. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and has supported the impugned judgments and has submitted that there is concurrent finding of both the learned courts below, therefore, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court in the second appeal. It is also submitted that no error has been committed by learned first appeal court as well as learned trial court while passing the impugned judgments and decrees as the same have been passed after appreciating and scrutinizing the material available on record. Therefore, it is prayed that the present second appeal may be dismissed. 15. Upon perusal of record, it reveals that late Shri Mohan Lal filed a suit in the trial court on the basis of averments that he is owner of plot No. 37E 30 x 27 square yard total 825 square yard and Municipal Board, Surat Garh has given possession to him by way of Pracha Moka and he is in possession of disputed plot but the appellant-department tried to construct wall in the disputed plot and wanted to obstruct the way. 16. The appellant-defendant denied the averments of the plaintiff and stated that the suit land is a part of Shramik Kalyan Kendra of PWD Department and respondent-plaintiffs have no title and possession over the suit land. 17. In the trial court during the trial the respondent-plaintiffs had succeeded to prove their title through patta Ex. 1 about suit land and they also produced permission for construction over the suit land Ex. 2 and Ex. 3 which proves that the Municipal Board had given permission for construction over the suit land to the respondent-plaintiffs. The plaintiff also produced Ex. 5 "Parcha Possession" which shows that Municipal Board has handed over the possession to the plaintiff over the suit land. 2 and Ex. 3 which proves that the Municipal Board had given permission for construction over the suit land to the respondent-plaintiffs. The plaintiff also produced Ex. 5 "Parcha Possession" which shows that Municipal Board has handed over the possession to the plaintiff over the suit land. Late plaintiff Mohan Lal's son Ram Pyara himself examined in the trial court as PW 1 and he proved the patta Ex. 1 and also specifically stated that the disputed plot is situated in the East side of Bikaner road and Municipal Board had given twice permission Ex. 2 and Ex. 3 to his father and his father had constructed four shops on disputed land. He also specifically stated that Nagar Palika gave possession and possession report is Ex. 5. 18. The Chairman, Municipal Board, Suratgarh, Roshan Lal (PW-2) has specifically stated in his statement that permission of construction (Ex.3) was given by the Municipal Board. PW-3 Balram is neighbour of plot No. 37E. He is owner of plot No. 33 and he specifically stated in his statement that in East side of his plot shop of late Mohan Lal was constructed. 19. Madan Singh (PW-4) the then Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Suratgarh also stated that he ordered to Junior Engineer to deliver possession of the suit land then Junior Engineer went to the plot and handed over the possession of the suit land to late Mohan Lal and he prepared report Ex.5. He has also specifically stated that in Ex.5 "E" to "F" is his order and "G" to "H" is his signature. Narender Kumar (PW-5) also proved possession report Ex.5 and he stated that in Ex.5 "E" to "F" is his signature and PW-6 Jugdish Prasad, Junior Engineer, Municipal Board, Suratgarh also proved Ex.5. 20. In these circumstances, the respondent-plaintiffs have succeeded to prove their ownership and possession over the suit land on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence that they are owner of plot No. 37E and they have legal possession over the plot No. 37E, but the appellant-defendant has failed to prove their defence in trial court. 20. In these circumstances, the respondent-plaintiffs have succeeded to prove their ownership and possession over the suit land on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence that they are owner of plot No. 37E and they have legal possession over the plot No. 37E, but the appellant-defendant has failed to prove their defence in trial court. The appellant-defendant failed to prove this fact that how much area for Shramik Kalyan Kendra was allotted to department, on how much part thereof construction was made by them, how much part was lying open and in which year and who had allotted the disputed land to the appellant-department, neither a single word has been whispered by the appellant-defendant in the written statement nor in the evidence they have whispered a single word that disputed land was also allotted to PWD for Shramik Kalyan Kendra. Even Ram Pyara (DW-1) has specifically stated in his cross-examination that ^^;g tehu dysDVj us gesa ugha nhA ;g tehu bVd ;wfu;u dks ugha ihMCY;wM+h dks nh FkhA** It proves that the disputed land was allotted to Shramik Kalyan Kendra. Although Ram Pyara (DW-1) in his cross-examination has stated that disputed land was allotted to PWD department, but PWD department has failed to produce any document which shows that the disputed land was allotted to PWD department, when PWD Department came with these facts that disputed land is a part of PWD land and which is allotted for Shramik Kalyan Kendra then it was the duty of the appellant-department to prove that PWD Department is owner of the disputed land and they are in possession of the disputed land but the appellant-department has failed to prove their ownership and possession also. Even to the respondent-plaintiff's witnesses Ram Pyara (PW 1) and Balaram (PW 3), a single question has been asked in cross-examination about the defence of appellant-department despite the respondent-plaintiffs have succeeded to prove their title and possession with support of document Ex.1 to 5 as well as oral evidence PW-1, PW-2, PW 3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6. 21. In view of above discussions, the respondent-plaintiffs succeeded to prove their title and possession over the suit land, therefore, they were entitled to get injunction against the appellant-department and learned trial court as well as first appellate court have rightly decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiffs and granted injunction against the appellant-department. 21. In view of above discussions, the respondent-plaintiffs succeeded to prove their title and possession over the suit land, therefore, they were entitled to get injunction against the appellant-department and learned trial court as well as first appellate court have rightly decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiffs and granted injunction against the appellant-department. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant-defendant that learned trial court has framed issue regarding title according to averment of appellant-defendant, is tenable because the respondent-plaintiffs filed the suit only for injunction and they have succeeded to prove their title and legal possession over the said plot. In these circumstances, if issue regarding title has been framed then it cannot be said that the learned trial court as well as the first appellate court have erred in decreeing the suit. 22. In my considered view when plaintiff is in long and legal possession, he can file suit for injunction without seeking prayer for declaration and without declaration injunction suit is maintainable. Here in the case in hand the plaintiffs have succeeded to prove their long and legal possession over the suit land, therefore, learned both the courts below have erred in law to decree the suit of plaintiffs. 23. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant-defendant that said land was reserved for government building, therefore, both the courts below have erred in granting injunction against the appellant-department is concerned, this contention of learned counsel for the appellant-department is also tenable, because first of all there is no evidence which shows that the disputed land was reserved for PWD department, secondly only the reservation of land for any department does give any right to a particular department till the same is allotted and possession is handed over to the said department by the competent authority. 24. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant-department that the construction of respondent-plaintiffs was removed, therefore, both the courts below have committed serious error in decreeing the suit is concerned, the same is tenable because first of all, the appellant-department has stated different things about removal of construction at different stages. In written statement, the appellant-department has stated that PWD has removed the construction of respondent-plaintiff, but in trial the DW-1 Ram Pyara has stated in his statement that in 1989 public of village had demolished the construction. In written statement, the appellant-department has stated that PWD has removed the construction of respondent-plaintiff, but in trial the DW-1 Ram Pyara has stated in his statement that in 1989 public of village had demolished the construction. Apart from that Kashi Ram (DW-2) had said different things in his statement about the removal of construction. Kashi Ram (DW-2) has stated that Assistant Engineer, PWD removed the construction in 1991. In written statement, the appellant-defendant has stated in additional objection that on 20.5.1986 they have removed the construction of the respondent-plaintiffs. In these circumstances, the defendant has stated clear facts about date, year and removal of the construction. 25. Apart from this, when the respondent-plaintiffs have succeeded to prove their title and possession over the suit land and the appellant-department has failed to prove their defence and also the facts to proves that disputed land is a part of his department Shramik Kalyan Kendra and also allotted them by competent authority and handed over the possession. In these circumstances, the construction made by the plaintiff was removed by the unauthorised body, because public has no right to remove the construction made by the plaintiff and PWD is also not owner of the disputed land, therefore, he is also not competent authority to remove the construction of the plaintiff. If anybody without any authority removes the construction of plaintiff that has not infringed any right of the plaintiffs. Apart from this it is also not proved by the appellant-department that Municipal Board has removed the construction of respondent-plaintiff. Despite respondent-plaintiff has proved that the Municipal Board has given possession to the respondent-plaintiffs according to the rules. In these circumstances, both the courts below have not committed any error in decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs. 26. In view of above discussions, this Court is of the view that the learned courts below have neither misread any evidence nor overlooked any material available on record. Both the courts below have passed the impugned judgment and decree after scrutinizing the evidence produced by the parties and have rightly held that respondent-plaintiffs are entitled for injunction against the appellant-department and rightly held that respondent plaintiffs have succeeded to prove their title and possession over the suit land and rightly granted injunction in favour of respondent-plaintiffs. Both the courts below have passed the impugned judgment and decree after scrutinizing the evidence produced by the parties and have rightly held that respondent-plaintiffs are entitled for injunction against the appellant-department and rightly held that respondent plaintiffs have succeeded to prove their title and possession over the suit land and rightly granted injunction in favour of respondent-plaintiffs. The judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below cannot be said to be perverse and contrary to the provisions of law. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere in the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, therefore, the substantial questions of law framed by this Court at the time of admission of this appeal is answered against the appellant-department and hence, the present appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.