ORDER 1. This second appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 06.11.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nohar, District Hanumangarh and judgment and decree dated 08.05.2019 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, whereby, the suit for mandatory injunction and possession filed by the respondents - plaintiffs has been decreed and the appeal filed by appellant along with respondent No.l in the present appeal, has been dismissed, respectively. 2. The respondent No.2 to 4 - plaintiffs filed a suit inter-alia with the averments that they were allotted land in khasra No.126, on which, they have possession by way of construction of godown. The respondent No. 1- Child Development Project Officer was allotted land in khasra No. 109/225, however, they were seeking to raise construction in land comprised in khasra No.126 allotted to them and, therefore, they be restrained from doing so and the construction raised be ordered to be removed. 3. The respondents contested the plea and claimed that the construction was being raised in khasra No.109/225. 4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed five issues. On behalf of the plaintiffs, two witnesses were examined and 15 documents were exhibited. On behalf of defendants, two witnesses were examined and no document was exhibited. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the land comprising in khasra No.126 was allotted to the plaintiffs and land comprising in khasra No.109/225 was allotted to the respondent No.l herein. 6. On the issue of the respondent No.l trespassing on the land belonging to the plaintiffs, the trial court relying on the Commissioner?s report, which was obtained during pendency of the appeal before the court of Additional District Judge, Nohar, arising from the order passed by the trial court under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC, came to the conclusion that the defendant -Department was seeking to dig foundation in khasra No.126, whereas, the allotment had been made in khasra No. 109/225. 7. The trial court also came to the conclusion that the plea raised regarding the commissioner's report being incorrect, had no basis and consequently, decreed the suit directing the respondent No.l - Department to remove their construction and prohibited it from raising any construction. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant along with respondent No.l in the present appeal, filed first appeal. 9. The trial court also came to the conclusion that the plea raised regarding the commissioner's report being incorrect, had no basis and consequently, decreed the suit directing the respondent No.l - Department to remove their construction and prohibited it from raising any construction. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant along with respondent No.l in the present appeal, filed first appeal. 9. The First Appellate Court after hearing the parties, reiterated the findings recorded by the trial court and consequently dismissed the appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that both khasra Nos. 109/225 and khasra No. 126 are next to each other and that the plea raised by the plaintiffs regarding the respondent No.l raising construction in the land allotted to them is baseless and, therefore, the judgments impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 12. Both the courts below have meticulously dealt with the issues based on the numerous documents filed by the plaintiff. Besides the documents, based on the commissioner's report, which was prepared by the Tehsildar (Land Records), Nohar, they came to the concurrent conclusion that the respondent -Department had trespassed on the land belonging to the plaintiffs. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court and as upheld by the First Appellate Court and, therefore, the judgments impugned do not call for any interference. 14. The above aspects are besides the fact that the respondent No.l, the beneficiary of the allotment and the wrong doer, has not challenged the judgments passed by the two courts below and the appellant who is only the allotting authority, has filed the appeal, who even otherwise cannot have any grievance qua the decree passed. 15. In view of the above discussion, as no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.