This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.10.2017 entered by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Saudatti in R.A.No.42/2016 whereby the Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2015 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Saudatti have been reversed and suit of the Appellant has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts stated are :

(a) The land bearing survey No.298 of Ugargol Village measuring 06 acres 09 guntas was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of Malaprabha project, Saudatti for storing the soil which was dug out from the canal. The acquisition was in the year 1972. The owner i.e. the land loser has been paid the compensation.

(b) The Appellant-Plaintiff gained entry to this land way back in 1980s and gradually occupied a portion of 03 acres leaving the remaining land for the use of the Government. The plaintiff has been cultivating the land and that he has improved it also in due course by investing money and toil continuously and that the land is thus rendered tillable.

(c) Under the schemes of Government for the grant of lands to the unauthorized occupants, the plaintiff has submitted an application to the first Respondent-Tahashildar seeking the grant of the suit land. The Revenue Inspector has conducted the spot inspection and submitted a report at Ex.P-3 favoring the case of the plaintiff for the grant specifically stating that the Plaintiff has been in the cultivation of the land.

(d) The Village Accountant of Ugargol village too has visited the land and after holding a spot enquiry has issued a certificate to the effect that the Plaintiff has been in the occupation and cultivation of the suit land which is marked as Ex.P-3. The Chairman of Uagargol Gram Panchayat has also issued a similar certificate which has been marked as Ex.P-2.

(e) When this was the position the Respondent Officers with intent to illegally remove the Plaintiff from the occupation of the suit land had started digging the ground with the help of JCB for planting trees. The request of the Defendant not to interfere with his possession fell on their deaf ears. With an intent to protect his possession and also reap the standing crops of Maize and Bengal Gram, the Appellant filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.42/2016 seeking a decree of permanent injunction. After service of notice the Respondent Officials entered appearance through the Government Advocate and filed a detailed Written Statement resisting the suit.

(f) From the side of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff himself was examined as PW-1 and one Dareppa S/o. Bhimappa Gudennavar was examined as PW-2. In their evidence 07 documents came to be marked as Ex.P-1 to P-7. From the side of the Respondents, one Sri Manjunath Shivappa Karoshi an official of the Horticulture Department was examined as DW-1. In his evidence, 04 documents came to be marked as Ex.D-1 to D-4. The Trial Court by its Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2015 decreed the suit by granting an order of permanent injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering with Appellant’s possession of the suit land without resorting to the due process of law.

3. The Respondent officials, aggrieved by the decree of the Trial Court preferred an Appeal in R.A.No.42/2016. The Appellate Court considered the pleadings of the parties, re-appreciated both facts and evidence on record and rendered the Judgment and Decree dated 24.10.2017 reversing that of the Trial Court and further dismissing the suit of the Appellant. The Appellate Court has specifically recorded a finding that the Appellant is not in the possession of the suit land on the basis of the documentary evidence and also the oral evidence of DW-1. Aggrieved by this the Appellant has knocked at the doors of this Court in Second Appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Chairman of the Gram Panchayat, the Village Accountant and the Revenue Inspector have given independent certificates specifically stating that the Appellant has been cul