JUDGMENT : 1. The Second Appeal challenges the judgment dated 26.09.2022 passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Anand in Regular Civil Appeal No.202 of 2019 confirming the judgment dated 05.09.2019 passed by 3rd Additional Civil Judge, Anand in Regular Civil Suit No.180 of 2009. 2. Learned advocate Mr.D.P. Kinariwala along with Advocate Mr.D.H. Bharwad for the appellant submitted that both the Courts have failed to take into consideration the admission of the defendant that on the western side of the land, there are Eucalyptus trees, and specific pleading of the appellant - plaintiff before the trial Court, that the land is in possession of the appellant. Mr. Kinariwala submitted that both the courts have erred in dismissing the suit, in spite of the fact that by Exhibit-73, the witness had deposed that the land acquired by G.I.D.C. is Survey No.383/1/A of Shankarbhai Galbabhai Thakor, and both the courts have erred in interpreting the evidence, Exh.83, which is Deed of Exchange, which says that GIDC had agreed to convey to the defendant the land mentioned in the second schedule of the agreement, and the said schedule does not bear the reference of Survey No.384. 2.1 Advocate Mr. Kinariwala referring to the judgment of Sidi Muslim Jamat Bilali Vs. Kasamsha Hajisha Sotiayara, reported in 2009 3 GLR 2260 , submitted that the trial Court Judge has committed grave error by passing an order against the plaintiff to hand over the peaceful possession of the land within 30 days of the order. Advocate Mr. Kinariwala submitted that there was no counter claim filed by the defendant, and without any specific prayer for possession, no such order could be passed, as the defendant was required to file counter claim as provided under Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Kinariwala submitted that the observation has been made by the appellate Court that other side is a party-in-person and he is defending his case on his own, so the appellate court Judge noted that there was lacuna in procedural aspect. 3. The facts of the case, as could be mentioned, are required to be noted that the Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) had the occasion to grant a consent award under section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short ‘the Act’). The land, as was noted in the consent award, was for public purpose viz. 3. The facts of the case, as could be mentioned, are required to be noted that the Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) had the occasion to grant a consent award under section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short ‘the Act’). The land, as was noted in the consent award, was for public purpose viz. for the establishment of industrial township by Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation. Certain lands of village Karamsad, Anand and Mogri known as Vitthal Udyognagar have been declared for acquisition. The consent award was passed pertaining to Survey No.383/1/A and of Survey No.384/part of village Karamsad, Taluka Anand, District Kaira. 3.1 The land Survey No.384 was notified under section 4 of the Act, under Revenue and Industries department Notification No.LKI.2763/6282-K dated 26th July, 1963, published in Government Gazette dated 01.08.1963 at page 2210. After completing the procedure laid down under section 5A, the survey numbers were notified under section 6 of the Act with notification No.AM:1760:MLKI:2763 99779(ii)k-1 dated 26.10.1964, published on 29.10.1964. The consent award notes that consequent upon the High Court decision in Special Civil Application No.903 of 1964 etc., it was cancelled. 3.2 The award notes that the Government in Industries, Mines and Power Department sanctioned the government contribution of Rs.1,000/- as per Resolution No.IND.1668/9421-D, dated 10.01.1969, and thereafter the government in Revenue Department has issued a fresh Notification No.AM- 184-M/LAH/2763/4293 L.A.II dated 18.01.1969 published in Gujarat Government extra ordinary Gazette dated 19.01.1969 at pages 74 to 76. Notices under section 9-10 of Land Acquisition Act have been issued, at the date and place noted as Mamlatdar’s office Anand, Panchayat office Karamsad and near the land, dated 12.11.1970 and 20.11.1970. As per the consent award, Survey No.383/1/A and Survey No.384/part admeasuring 0- Hector, 89-Acres, 03 sqm. was acquired of village karamsad Taluka Anand. The compensation was paid to Shankarbhai Galbabhai Thakor, in connection to Survey No.384/Part. 4. Dr. V.N. Kamat, Managing Director, of Baroda Electric Meters Ltd., submitted that Land Acquisition Officer (OSD/Collector) is a necessary party to the suit proceedings, since the matter relates to land acquisition under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Mr. was acquired of village karamsad Taluka Anand. The compensation was paid to Shankarbhai Galbabhai Thakor, in connection to Survey No.384/Part. 4. Dr. V.N. Kamat, Managing Director, of Baroda Electric Meters Ltd., submitted that Land Acquisition Officer (OSD/Collector) is a necessary party to the suit proceedings, since the matter relates to land acquisition under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Mr. Kamat submitted that GIDC also becomes a necessary party, as the Deed of Exchange (Exh.83) was singed by Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. with GIDC, where the legal position of the disputed land is recognized by the document signed between GIDC and the respondent Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. 4.1 Mr. Kamat submitted that during the course of judicial process, as injunction was granted under Exh.5 of the suit, the appellant abused the process of law and built a permanent, brick and mortar structure / dwelling between the period 26.04.2010 to 12.01.2012. Massive permanent damage and loss has been caused to the Company, even when, the learned appellate Court in M.C.A. No.60/2010 on 12.01.2012 had quashed the injunction observing it to be illegal, capricious, erroneous and against the principles of law. 4.2 Mr. Kamat submitted that the appellant had not removed the encroachment. The panchnama submitted to the trial Court on 31.05.2009 (Exh.17/2) after notice issued on 28.05.2009 (Exh.17), is the proof to the fact that Survey No.384-south land, was in physical possession of the Baroda Electric Meters Ltd., and that there was no encroachment of hut or dwellings of the appellant. The panchnama (Exh.17) clearly showed the remnants of the bill board/hoardings, which belonged to the respondent and destroyed by the appellant. Mr. Kamat submitted that the appellant had hidden the fact of C.R.A. No.412/1996 on 11.03.1996 on the same subject matter, which came to be rejected on 02.02.1998. Mr. Kamat submitted that all members of the family had filed the suit, and, thus, present is hit by doctrine of res judicata. 4.3 Advocate Mr. Kamat referring to the fact of the case submits that the appellant had failed to show that disputed parcel of land, where he was a tiller/tenant before the acquisition under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was acquired under a consent award under section 11(2) of the Act by the Officer on Special Duty. (OSD), Land Acquisition, Case No.OSD/LAQ/KRA-1(20), dated 21.03.1975, that was signed by Shankarbhai Patel, who had paid compensation and given alternate land. 4.4 Mr. (OSD), Land Acquisition, Case No.OSD/LAQ/KRA-1(20), dated 21.03.1975, that was signed by Shankarbhai Patel, who had paid compensation and given alternate land. 4.4 Mr. Kamat submitted that the appellant had not disclosed that he was monetarily compensated for the second time for the same piece of land in the year 2001, as per the settlement pursis in Regular Civil Suit No.525/1994 (Exh.82), that was filed by Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. against the appellant, which resulted in a settlement. 4.5 Mr. Kamat further stated that the appellant had filed Regular Civil Suit No.382/1990, R.C.S. 235/1995, R.C.S.108/2007 and R.C.S.180/2009. Mr. Kamat submitted that each of the former cases were rejected and disposed off, and the appellant had not appealed against any of them. 4.6 Mr. Kamat stated that the appellant had applied for temporary injunction in R.C.S. No.382/1990, and even before the appellate Court in R.C.A. No.202/2019, but both came to be rejected, and the temporary injunction which was granted by the trial Court in R.C.S. No.180/2009 was quashed by the District Court in M.C.A. No.60/10 (Exh.38). Mr. Kamat further stated that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by limitation since was filed after the notification of acquisition for the GIDC. Mr. Kamat, submitted that R.C.S. No.180/2009, should not have been allowed when the matter has already been decided between the same two parties in the earlier suit being R.C.S. 235/1995 (Exh.69), where no appeal has been taken in the higher court. 4.7 Mr. Kamat further submitted that ignoring the Deed of Exchange between the Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. and GIDC, which is a valid registered legal document transferring the legal right of the property to Baroda Electric Meters Ltd., which shows that the property was transferred free of any liens, the appellant unnecessarily has created hurdles by filing suits, which is a repeated desperate failed attempts by appellant to claim Survey No.384- south land, that originally belonged to Chandubhai Patel, who was self-cultivator and owner. The panchnama in R.C.S. No.180/2009 dated 31.05.2009, Mr. Kamat submitted, proves that Survey No.384-South land is in possession of the Baroda Electric Meters Ltd., and there was no encroachment or huts reflected in the panchnama drawn during that trial. 4.8 Mr. Kamat submitted that orders have been passed under Land Acquisition Act, which is acquired by the GIDC and Baroda Electric Meters Ltd., has been in possession of the land by way of Deed of Exchange. 4.8 Mr. Kamat submitted that orders have been passed under Land Acquisition Act, which is acquired by the GIDC and Baroda Electric Meters Ltd., has been in possession of the land by way of Deed of Exchange. Mr. Kamat submitted that corporate tax have been paid by Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. and all other necessary fees have already been paid by the Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. 5. The dispute, now sought to be raised, is about the land admeasuring 1 Acre of Survey No.384 of village Karamsad, Taluka and District Anand. The present appeal is in connection to suit of the plaintiff filed as Regular Civil Suit No.180 of 2009 before the learned Civil Judge, Anand for declaration and for permanent injunction to declare him as an owner of the said land, with another relief prayed for, of permanent injunction. 6. The Regular Civil Suit No.180 of 2009 was filed by Parsottambhai Shankarbhai Thakor on his own behalf and on behalf of the joint family against Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. with the pleading that 1 Acre of land i.e. 0.80.84 H.Are.sqm. of Survey No.384, was in the possession of the plaintiff, as tenant. The original owner showed no income of less than Rs.1500, so under the certificate of no income, 1 Acre on the eastern side was ordered to be given to the land owner, and it is stated by the plaintiff that the said land was taken by GIDC. The land on the western side remained in possession of the plaintiff as tenant, wherein Mango Trees are still in existence. The sale price of the land along with Mango Trees were decided by the Tenancy Court, which was paid by them and a certificate under Form-9 was issued. It was stated by the plaintiff that the land is new tenure land restricted under section 43 of the Tenancy Act. The said land was running in the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records. 6.1 It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the certain lands were exchanged by Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. with GIDC. The plaintiff had urged that GIDC was holding the land of only 1 Acre, instead 2 Acres of land was exchanged to Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. and a Change Entry No.27669 was mutated. As the same came to the notice of the plaintiffs, they had filed their objections. The plaintiff had urged that GIDC was holding the land of only 1 Acre, instead 2 Acres of land was exchanged to Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. and a Change Entry No.27669 was mutated. As the same came to the notice of the plaintiffs, they had filed their objections. The matter was conducted before the Mamlatdar Court. Against that, an appeal was filed, which was ordered to be remanded as RTS Remand Case No.50/92, and the objection of the plaintiff came to be allowed and the said Change Entry came to be rejected. Against that, Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. had filed an RTS Appeal No.115/2007 before the Deputy Collector, which was rejected on 31.03.2009. It was also stated that defendant had sold his share of northern side of the land falling on Anand Sojitra Road to 3rd party admeasuring One Acre, while the southern part land on the eastern side remained with the plaintiff, wherein they have the residential hut and Nilgiri crops. 6.2 The issues framed by the trial Court are as under : 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that out of total 2 Acre 0 Gunthas of disputed property in R.S. No.384 he solely owns and posses 1 Acre and 0 Gunthas towards Athamni (Now Dakshini)? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that Athamni that is west of the Anand Sojitra road is now dakshini that is south of the disputed property? 3. Whether the defendant proves that they receive the 2 Acre and 0 Gunthas of land in R.S. No.384, Karamsad in exchange from the GIDC? 4. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the relief claimed for? 5. What order and Decree?” 6.3 The suit of the plaintiff came to be rejected by the trial Court with direction to hand over the peaceful possession of the land within 30 days. The plaintiff had filed an appeal, which also came to be rejected. 7. The Deed of Exchange dated 26.12.1989 was between Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and M/s. Baroda Electric Meters, wherein it was observed that GIDC was seized of and in possession of parcels of land or ground at village Karamsad in registration of sub-district Anand, District Kheda, admeasuring in aggregate about 26,674-9 Sq. mtrs., bearing revenue survey nos.384, 386/1P, 386/2P, 386/3A +3B/P, 769/1+2/P, which was described in the first schedule and the total acquisition cost of the land was noted as Rs.62,040. mtrs., bearing revenue survey nos.384, 386/1P, 386/2P, 386/3A +3B/P, 769/1+2/P, which was described in the first schedule and the total acquisition cost of the land was noted as Rs.62,040. 7.1 In the said agreement, the land which was in the possession of Baroda Electric Meters Ltd., with the same measurement of 26,674.09 sq. was given in exchange bearing Revenue Survey No.767/1+2+3,768 described in second schedule. 7.2 The GIDC and Baroda Electric Meters Ltd., mutually agreed to exchange the respective plots of land described in first and second schedule. GIDC agreed to convey to Baroda Electric Meters Ltd., the said land by way of exchange, and in furtherance of the agreement dated 18.09.1973, on direction by the GIDC, Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. had handed over the physical possession of the land bearing Survey No.767/1+2+3/P,768 admeasuring in aggregate 26,674-09 sq. mtrs. In furtherance of the agreement, the GIDC had handed to Baroda Electric Meters Ltd., physical possession of the said land bearing Survey Nos.384, 386/1P, 386/2P, 386/3A+3B/P, 769/1+2 of village Karamsad admeasuring 26,674-09 sq. Mtrs. The possession receipt dated 18.06.1986 issued by GIDC refers to Survey No.384 as 2 Acres of land. GIDC had given the possession of 2 Acres of Survey No.384 to Baroda Electric Meters Ltd., along with the above referred land. 7.3 The land in the possession of the GIDC was handed over to Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. The whole Survey No.384 has been referred, and by the document of exchange the possession of the Survey No.384 came in the hands of Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. 8. The short facts related to two Acres land of Survey No.384, reflects that originally the land belonged to Shri Chandubhai Chhotabhai Patel, who gave it to Shri Shankarbhai Galbabhai Thakor, the father of the plaintiff of RCA No.202/2019 i.e. Parsottambhai Shankarbhai Thakor. Later on the basis of certificate of low income, which was less than Rs.1,500/-, One Acre of land was returned back to the original owner Chandubhai Chhotabhai Patel, which was half of the land of Survey No.384. The Revenue and Industries Department, Government of Gujarat issued notification on 26.07.1963 and published the same in Gujarat Government Gazette dated October 29, 1964 as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1964 for Two Acres of Survey No.384. The land of Survey No.384 lies to the south of Anand-Cambay Railway line. On the east is Survey No.383 and on the west is Survey No.385. The land of Survey No.384 lies to the south of Anand-Cambay Railway line. On the east is Survey No.383 and on the west is Survey No.385. The land in question being Survey No.384, 2 Acres i.e. area of 0.80.84 H.Are.Sqm., was split into two equal parts of 1, Acre by Anand Sojitra Road that cuts through it, delineating the property in area of 0.40.47 H.Are.Sqm. each. 8.1 Before acquisition, the land of northern part of the road belonged to Shankarbhai Galababhai i.e. father of Parsottambhai Shankarbhai Thakor, and the land on southern part was of the original owner Chandubhai Chhotabhai Patel. 8.2 The Officer on Special Duty appointed under sub-section (c) of section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, was empowered under section 7 to pass order for acquisition of the entire Survey No.384. The Officer on Special Duty on 17.06.1970 took the possession of One Acre of the land, which was on the northern part of the road from the father of the plaintiff, Shankarbhai Galbabhai Thakor, who gave consent for acquisition as per clause 9 and in return as per Rules of the GIDC Shankarbhai Galbabhai Thakor was allotted two Gunthas of land in Plot No.17 of GIDC Estate on 24.09.1974 for building his hut, which Shankarbhai Galbabhai Thakor, the father of the plaintiff, readily accepted. Since he had given his consent, a consent award was drawn which came to be issued on 21.03.1971, and the possession of the land was taken on the same day under consent. 8.3 While Chandubhai Chhotabhai Patel, original owner of the land resisted the acquisition. Thereafter, later on, in Regular Civil Suit No.525/1994 filed by Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. under settlement pursis, the dispute was resolved having observed that under the acquisition proceedings of GIDC, Vitthal Udyognagar, on the notification of 23.01.1969, the Land Acquisition Officer in pursuance to the proceeding on 14.09.1971 took the possession of the land from the power of attorney holder of original land owner Chandubhai Chhotabhai Patel. The power of attorney Rajivbhai Chhotabhai Patel executed possession receipt in favour of the Land Acquisition Officer and in that process, the land on the Southern side of the Road of Survey No.384 was handed over to the Acquisition Officer. 8.4 The settlement pursis of the parties in Civil Suit No.525/94 clarifies that Survey No.384 in the hands of Chandubhai Chhotabhai was on southern side of Anand Sojitra Highway Road. 8.4 The settlement pursis of the parties in Civil Suit No.525/94 clarifies that Survey No.384 in the hands of Chandubhai Chhotabhai was on southern side of Anand Sojitra Highway Road. The revenue proceedings were withdrawn. The document of Exchange was referred and it was agreed upon that the total land, which was acquired by the GIDC was entrusted to the plaintiff Baroda Electric Meters Ltd., and in view of the settlement on 01.12.2001, it was noted that the power of attorney has handed over the possession. Under the settlement, it was acknowledged that the compensation of the land was paid to them on 24.11.2001, and, thus the contested defendant had no right, title on the land in question. The settlement was only noted for the northern area of Survey No.384; with further clarification that the said settlement does not affect the southern side of the land. The settlement purshis acknowledges 3570 sqm. of northern land sold to Kiranbhai Praful Patel by way of registered agreement of sale and possession handed over to him, for the remaining land of 2153 sqm. and 1417 sqm. Sale deed were executed. 1417 sqm. of land belongs to Vasantbhai Dhanabhai Iyer. Further noting that defendant has no right, title, interest or share-part on the land the civil and revenue proceedings were decided to be withdrawn with clarification to ratify the entry in favour of GIDC and Baroda Electric meters and consenting for entries in favour of purchasers. 8.5 It is to be noted that the father of the plaintiff had already surrendered the possession of the land and in exchange had taken 2 Gunthas of land in Plot No.17 of GIDC on 24.09.1974. The settlement arrived at in Civil Suit No.525/94, was also signed by Parsottambhai Shankarbhai Thakor on 01.12.2001. 8.6 Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. was handed over the possession of whole of the land by way of Deed of Exchange on 26.12.1989, and under settlement, the dispute was resolved, and under the Deed of Exchange of 26.12.1989, the possession of the plaintiff Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. was approved, further observing that power of attorney Rajivbhai Chhotabhai Patel has handed over the possession on behalf of Chandubhai Chhotabhai. In view of settlement in Civil Suit No.525/94, the present appellant as plaintiff had no cause to file Regular Civil Suit No.180/2009. In view of settlement in Civil Suit No.525/94, the present appellant as plaintiff had no cause to file Regular Civil Suit No.180/2009. 8.7 From the facts and acquisition proceeding, it can be noted that 2 Acres of land of Survey No.384 was already acquired under Land Acquisition Act for GIDC, and the possession of the land was taken by the Officer on Special Duty. The father of plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No.180/2009 i.e. Shankarbhai had already assented to the acquisition and inturn had accepted the property of 2 Gunthas of land in Plot No.17 of GIDC Estate in accordance to the Rules of GIDC. There was no dispute to the acquisition, but since Chandubhai Chhotabhai Patel had raised the dispute, the litigation proceeded. 8.8 Hence, in view of the settlement which has been noted in Civil Suit No.525/1994, the disputed land of southern side of Anand Sojitra Road was already handed over by the power of attorney of Chandubhai Chhotabhai i.e. Ravjibhai Chhotabhai on 14.09.1971, and land acquisition officer had executed a receipt, while the dispute raised by Parsottambhai Shankarbhai Thakor, in the impugned suit R.C.S. No.180/2009 further carried in R.C.A. No.202 of 2019, had been resolved in Civil Suit No.525 of 1994 for the land, whereupon Parsottambhai Shankarbhai Thakor and his family had created encroachment. 9. In view of this fact, the suit being Regular Civil Suit No.180 of 2009 by Parsottambhai Shankarbhai Thakor is merely a hindrance. The settlement pursis, Exh.216 in the case of Regular Civil Suit No.525/1994, was submitted by Baroda Electric Meters in the trial Court as Exh.82, and there was no reason for Parsottambhai Shankarbhai Thakor and his family members to raise any dispute. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Kinariwala submitted that without any counter claim, no order could be passed by the trial Court to hand over the possession to the defendants. 10.1 It is required to be noted that the possession of the disputed land was already handed over by father of Parsottambhai Shankarbhai Thakor i.e. Shankarbhai Galabhai, who in exchange had received Two Gunthas of land in Plot No.17 of GIDC Estate. In spite of that, again a dispute was raised, which came to be settled in Regular Civil Suit No.525/1994. Again by raising Regular Civil Suit No.180/2009, Parsottambhai Shankarbhai Thakor had tried to create hindrance on the land. 11. In spite of that, again a dispute was raised, which came to be settled in Regular Civil Suit No.525/1994. Again by raising Regular Civil Suit No.180/2009, Parsottambhai Shankarbhai Thakor had tried to create hindrance on the land. 11. The Court had rightly observed that already the possession was with the Acquisition Officer, which was handed over to GIDC; in spite of that Parsottambhai Shankarbhai Thakor had continuously created obstruction on the land and Baroda Electric Meters Ltd., by due process of law agitated to remove the obstruction of the encroachment, and even had proved the case in Regular Civil Suit No.180/2009, which came to be confirmed by the appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.202 of 2019. 12. This Court does not find any ground to raise any substantial question of law, even further in view of the concurrent findings of trial court and first appellate Court, the direction of handing over of the possession of suit land by removing the encroachment be followed forthwith. 13. In view of the above observations, the present appeal stands dismissed. Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. Record and Proceeding be sent back to the concerned Court.