ORDER : Rajiv Joshi, J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Devendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Sri Vivek Kumar Sharma holding brief of Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant-respondent. 3. Present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 6.9.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 4 Aligarh dismissing the civil appeal no. 94 of 2010 and affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.8.2010 passed by the trial court in Original Suit No. 132 of 1999. 5. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-Aligarh Development Authority, Aligarh from interfering with his peaceful possession over the land of plot no. 115 having area 337.12 sq. metre. The case setup by the plaintiff was that he is the recorded tenure holder of the aforesaid land which was never acquired by the State Government by any notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore, the defendant-respondent has no right to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. 6. The defendant-Aligarh Development Authority, Aligarh, filed its written statement, contested the suit and challenged the possession of the plaintiff over the land by stating that the land including the land in dispute had already been acquired by the State Government vide notification dated 22.1.1997 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act as well as notification dated 16.1.1998 issued under Section 6 of the said Act. It was further averred by the defendant in its written statement that the possession of the acquired land including the disputed land had already been delivered to the Aligarh Development Authority on 12.8.1998 and under these circumstances, the plaintiff has no right over the land in suit and the suit cannot be decreed. 7. Both the parties in support of their respective case, adduced the oral and documentary evidence. 8. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 16.8.2010 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with the finding that the land of plaintiff-appellant had already been acquired vide notification dated 22.1.1997 and 16.1.1998 issued under Section 4 (1) and 6 of the Act respectively and the possession had already been taken from the plaintiff-appellant and with the said finding, the suit was dismissed. The decree passed by the trial court was challenged by the plaintiff by way of filing Civil Appeal No. 94 of 2010, which too was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 6.9.2013. 9. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the suit has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction and therefore, the plaint of the suit should have been returned and both the courts below have committed illegality while not returning the plaint. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent, has supported the findings so recorded in the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the courts below. 11. I have considered the rival submissions as raised by the parties and perused the record. 12. A specific finding has been recorded by both the courts below that the land in suit had already been acquired vide notifications issued under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act respectively and the possession had also been taken and transferred to the defendant-Aligarh Development Authority. Under these circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction is not at all maintainable. The suit has been dismissed on merits by recording a categorical finding that plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove that he is owner and in possession of the land in question. Hence, in such circumstances, the question of returning the plaint as argued by learned counsel for the appellant does not arise at all. 13. The findings so recorded by both the courts below are findings of fact and there is no perversity or illegality in the orders impugned herein. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. 14. Appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost.