JUDGMENT : 1. ADMIT. Mr. Hardik Mehta, learned A.G.P. waives service of notice of Admission on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3. 2. Learned counsels requested to delete the respondent Nos.2 and 4 in this proceedings. 3. As there is concurrent findings of trial Court as well as first Appellate Court on the issue involved, a joint request being made by learned counsels appearing for respective parties to decide the appeal finally, and hence, this appeal is taken up for final disposal. 4. Short facts of the present case may be referred as under: 4.1 That, Civil Suit was filed by the plaintiff praying for permanent injunction contending that he was the owner and in possession of the land bearing Survey No.500, Hissa No.3 admeasuring 3 Acres – 15 Gunthas situated at Village: Fansa, Taluka: Umargaon, District: Valsad. That, name of the plaintiff was mutated in the revenue record as the owner of the said land. It was further contended that out of the said land, 2 Acres – 38 Gunthas were used as an agricultural land for cultivation and 17 Gunthas was waste land. That, father and forefather of the plaintiff got this land as an agricultural tenant under Section 70-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. That, purchase price was paid by the plaintiff and thereafter it was transferred in the name of the plaintiff on 5th December, 1977, and since then, he was in possession being owner of the land. It was further averred in the plaint that he was paying revenue in respect of the disputed land. As per the averments made in the plaint by the plaintiff, the officers of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 contacted the plaintiff in the year 1981 and defendant No.1 informed the plaintiff about social reform scheme for the benefit of adivasi and that the Government offers a financial aid of Rs.16,000/- for the purchase of the agricultural equipments and had paid cheque of Rs.16,000/- to the plaintiff. The plaintiff in good faith received the amount of Rs.16,000/- and executed a receipt for the same. That, in May-1995, officers of defendant No.1 came to the disputed land and approached the wife of the plaintiff with a request that they want to survey the property, and therefore, wanted to put plastic paper shed for rest purpose during the survey of entire village for about one month. That, in May-1995, officers of defendant No.1 came to the disputed land and approached the wife of the plaintiff with a request that they want to survey the property, and therefore, wanted to put plastic paper shed for rest purpose during the survey of entire village for about one month. Thereafter, again in September-1995, without permission of the plaintiff, some persons appeared on the disputed land. On inquiry, it was found that they were workers of the contractor of the defendant No.4 and they started digging in the disputed land and brought building material on the suit land. They started construction work, and therefore, wife of the plaintiff lodged a police complaint, and thereafter, he came to know that land was acquired. As per the averments made in the plaint, said acquisition was without notice of the plaintiff, and therefore, is null and void and not binding to the plaintiff. That, for the first time in September- 1995, plaintiff came to know of the acquisition of the land, and therefore, filed a suit for declaration and injunction of declaring the acquisition of the suit land bearing Survey No.500, Hissa No.3 admeasuring 3 Acres – 15 Gunthas was null and void having no effect of law. It was further prayed that the mutation entry No.4936 certified on 11th August, 1988 be declared as null and void. Permanent injunction was sought by the plaintiff to restrain the defendants from entering into the suit land and from carrying on any construction in any nature and to direct the defendants to pay Rs.1,000/- per month as mesne profit. 4.2 On receiving summons issued by the Court, defendants appeared and filed their written statement vide Exhibit 29 denying the claim of the plaintiff. It was contended that amount for acquisition of land was received by the plaintiff way back in year 1981 and as per the revenue record of 1987, the name of the defendants were mutated in the revenue record. That, as an afterthought, the suit was filed by the plaintiff belatedly with an ulterior motive. Ultimately, it was requested by the defendants to dismiss the suit. 4.3 The learned trial Judge, after recording the evidence, was pleased to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff by judgment and decree dated 30th June, 2006. That, as an afterthought, the suit was filed by the plaintiff belatedly with an ulterior motive. Ultimately, it was requested by the defendants to dismiss the suit. 4.3 The learned trial Judge, after recording the evidence, was pleased to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff by judgment and decree dated 30th June, 2006. 4.4 The original plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 30th June, 2006 in Regular Civil Suit No.167 of 1995, preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.38 of 2006 before the Court of learned District Judge at Valsad. The learned 2nd (Ad-hoc) Additional District Judge, Valsad, heard both the sides and vide judgment and decree dated 17th March, 2018, dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff – appellant. Hence, this appeal. 5. Following substantial questions of law are framed to determine the present appeal: - [1] By not considering the fact that the appellant is in possession of the suit property, whether findings of Lower Appellate Court regarding the same, is bad in law, perverse and liable to be set aside? [2] While deciding point about deposit of cheque of Rs.16,000/- in the account of plaintiff in the year 1981, whether the court below was justified in coming to the conclusion that the said cheque for acquisition of land was deposited in the account of plaintiff, who is illiterate, by keeping him in dark? [3] Whether the court below was justified in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was aware of the procedure of acquisition and that the plaintiff was not in the impression that the cheque was given for purchasing agricultural equipments etc.? [4] Whether the court below has been justified and discarding court commissioner report stating that the appellant is in the possession of suit property? 6. Heard Mr. Gaurav Goyal, learned counsel for Mr. Rushabh R. Shah, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Hardik Mehta, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. 7. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that judgment and decree passed by the trial courts are contrary to the record and evidence, and therefore, requires to be quashed and set aside. That, the plaintiff was never informed by the officers of the defendants about acquiring land by following due procedure of law. 1 and 3. 7. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that judgment and decree passed by the trial courts are contrary to the record and evidence, and therefore, requires to be quashed and set aside. That, the plaintiff was never informed by the officers of the defendants about acquiring land by following due procedure of law. It was further submitted that the plaintiff was approached by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 announcing a social reform scheme for the benefit of adivasi and finance aid of Rs.16,000/- offered by the Government for the purchase of the agricultural equipments and paid cheque of Rs.16,000/- to the plaintiff. That, in a good faith the amount was received by the plaintiff and had issued a receipt for the same. That, trial Court as well as first Appellate Court have committed a grave error in not accepting the submission of the plaintiff and observing that the land was acquired by the defendants and compensation was paid to the plaintiff and possession was handed over to the defendants. That, there was no reliable evidence available with the trial court to accept the version of the defendants acquiring the land in dispute, about the ownership of the plaintiff, passing an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, paying compensation of the suit land to the plaintiff and possession handed over by the plaintiff to the defendants. That, both the Courts have committed an error in not accepting the version of the plaintiff, and therefore, it was requested by learned counsel for the appellant to allow the appeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 8. From the other-side, learned A.G.P. for the respondent Nos.1 and 3 submitted that suit filed by the plaintiff itself was not maintainable as he has no right to file the suit. That, as required under the law, all necessary procedure was adopted by the defendants before acquisition of the land in question. It was further submitted by learned A.G.P. that plaintiff was not owner of the suit land. That, after completing the procedure of acquiring the land, the defendants were in possession of the suit land. That, as required under the law, all necessary procedure was adopted by the defendants before acquisition of the land in question. It was further submitted by learned A.G.P. that plaintiff was not owner of the suit land. That, after completing the procedure of acquiring the land, the defendants were in possession of the suit land. That, as per the order of the Revenue Department, on 28th July, 1987, the suit land was acquired and possession was handed over to the defendants and still defendants were in possession of the suit land. It was further argued that under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, consent was given by the plaintiff himself to the officer on Special Duty and had received the amount of compensation of the acquired land. That, possession of the suit land was handed over on 15th June, 1981 and compensation of Rs.16,000/- was received by the plaintiff by cheque bearing No.244802 on 3rd July, 1981 and receipt for acknowledgment was also issued by him under his signature. It was further submitted that after completing the procedure for acquiring land, mutation entries were made in village record. That, possession of the suit land was with the defendants since last 40 years from the date of filing of the suit and plaintiff has no right to get any declaration and injunction as prayed for. It was submitted that no error was manifestly committed by the Courts below in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff as well as the appeal preferred by the plaintiff. Hence, learned AGP requested to dismiss the present appeal with costs. 9. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties, and perused the record of the trial court, it appears that vide Exhibit 36, documentary list was produced by the defendants. A Notification of acquiring the land under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 28th July, 1987. It also appears from the other documents produced on record that an amount of Rs.16,000/- was paid by way of compensation in advance to the plaintiff and he had made his signature in presence of two witnesses. A cheque, bearing No.244802 dated 3rd July, 1981 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Industrial Branch, Vapi was issued to the plaintiff. It also appears from the other documents produced on record that an amount of Rs.16,000/- was paid by way of compensation in advance to the plaintiff and he had made his signature in presence of two witnesses. A cheque, bearing No.244802 dated 3rd July, 1981 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Industrial Branch, Vapi was issued to the plaintiff. It appears that on 19th July, 1989, office of the Officer on Special Duty – III (Land Acquisition), Ahmedabad had passed an order under Section 11 (2) of the Act. Compensation was also awarded to the persons whose land were acquired under Section 11(3) of the Act. That, description of the different lands was also attached as Statement-A along with the Order. It also transpires from the record produced before the trial Court that one agreement was also executed by the plaintiff himself under his signature giving his consent of acquiring land and making no disturbance to the officer of the Government till the process of acquiring the land would be ended. Receipt of cheque amount was also issued by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants under his signature was also produced on record. Thereafter, it appears that in revenue record in Village Form No.7/12 name of the Gujarat Industrial Vikas Nigam was also entered. As per the letter issued by the office of Officer on Special Duty-III dated 15th December, 1995, suit land was acquired by award dated 19th July, 1989 and possession was handed over to the G.I.D.C. on 15th June, 1981. That, an amount by advance payment of compensation was paid to the plaintiff on 3rd July, 1981 and accordingly the plaintiff was informed about the award passed by the competent authority. The remaining amount of compensation of Rs.13,657.20/- was deposited by D.D. dated 4th April, 1990 before the office of the Mamlatdar, Umargam. That, plaintiff was also informed by the office of the Mamlatdar, Umargam by letter dated 8th February, 1996 to receive the awarded remaining amount of compensation deposited with the office. Again letter was issued by the same office to the plaintiff. Of course, some of the documents, such as revenue record, paying certain taxes, electric bill paid by the plaintiff were also produced on record. 10. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the name of the plaintiff was deleted in the revenue record after 2000. Of course, some of the documents, such as revenue record, paying certain taxes, electric bill paid by the plaintiff were also produced on record. 10. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the name of the plaintiff was deleted in the revenue record after 2000. That, the plaintiff was not in a legal possession of the suit land after the award was passed by the competent officer under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. From the record, it appears that defendant No.2 was the owner and was in legal possession of the suit land. The plaintiff has handed over the actual possession of the suit land to the G.I.D.C. on 15th June, 1981 and had signed in presence of the officer of G.I.D.C., Vapi as well as two independent witnesses. The signature of the plaintiff was unchallenged. The compensation for acquisition of the land was also received by the plaintiff. An agreement was also executed with the defendant No.2 produced vide Exhibit 121. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that plaintiff was in possession of the suit land or any announcement was made by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 of any social reform scheme for the benefit of adivasi and offering of financial aid of Rs.16,000/- for the purchase of agricultural equipments and he was paid a cheque of Rs.16,000/- on the same aspect. That, the procedure of acquisition of land was completed by following the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, possession of the suit land was also handed over by the plaintiff to the G.I.D.C. and compensation was also paid to the plaintiff and acknowledgment receipt was also issued by him under his signature in presence of the witnesses. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law requires to be answered in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Narendra and others V/s. Ajabrao S/o. Narayan Katare (Dead) Through Legal Representatives, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 564, has held that interference in second appeal with finding of fact is not permissible where such finding is found to be wholly perverse to the extent that no judicial person could ever record such finding or where that finding is found to be against the settled principle of law or pleadings or evidence. Such errors constitute a question of law permitting interference in second appeal. Finding of fact on question of adverse possession arrived at by First Appellate Court reversing the finding of trial Court, held that was binding on Second Appellate Court as it was not perverse. 12. In another case, in the matter between Aftaruddin (Dead) Represented through Legal Representatives V/s. Ramkrishna Datta Alias Babul Datta and others, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 77 , in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, concurrent findings of fact without there being any questions of law much less substantial question of law were set aside by the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court viewed that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the concurrent findings of fact without there being any questions of law much less substantial question of law arising in second appeal. In the cited case, judgment of the High Court was set aside and the judgment of the trial Court was restored. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmabiri Rana V/s. Pramod Kumar Sharma (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Another, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 554 , has confirmed the order passed by the High Court in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure dismissing the same in absence of any substantial question of law involved therein. 14. In another case, in the matter between Shivaji Balaram Haibatti V/s. Avinash Maruthi Pawar, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 652 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paras 16, 17 and 18 as under: - “16. Section 100 of the Code deals with second appeals. Sub-section (4) says that where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in the case, it shall formulate that question. Sub-section (5) says that the appeal shall be heard on the question “so formulated”. It further provides that the respondent is allowed to raise an objection at the time of hearing of the appeal that the question which has been framed does not involve in the case or in other words, is not a “substantial question of law” and, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as involving no substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code. 17. 17. The proviso to sub-section (5), however, recognises the power of the High Court to frame any other substantial question of law which was not initially framed but in the opinion of the Court does not arise in the case. The Court can frame such question by assigning reasons. 18. Reading of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 100 of the Code, in clear terms, shows that, first, the High Court can hear the second appeal only on the question so formulated; second, it has jurisdiction to dismiss the second appeal if the respondent raises an objection at the time of hearing that the question so formulated does not arise in the case or is not a substantial question of law; and third, it can hear the appeal on any other question not initially framed provided such question arises in the case and is a substantial question of law. Such question can then be framed by assigning the reasons.” 15. Accordingly, this appeal fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial court as well as of the first Appellate Court are hereby confirmed. 16. R & P be sent back to the trial Court by the registry forthwith.