The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of rightful possession of acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act and the entitlement of the plaintiff university to possession and damages.

The present Second appeals are directed against common judgment and decree passed by I-Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal Nos. 15/1999 and 16/1999 dated 12-6-2003.

The background facts of the case are as under:

2. The dispute is in respect of agricultural land bearing S. No. 40/2E consisting of 77 Are situated at village Rahuri, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. The present defendants are the owner and possessor of the said agricultural land.

3. The plaintiff agricultural university alleging that the suit land and other lands proposed for acquisition of lands for public purposes therefore, an award was declared and accordingly authorities have handed over the possession of the suit land to the university.

4. It is further contended that though the authorities bring the lands under cultivation but same was unauthorisedly occupied by the defendants by encroaching. It is further contended that some of the agriculturists handed over the possession of the lands to the plaintiff university by mutual understanding. Therefore, the plaintiff files suit for removal of encroachment and for possession of the suit lands, the plaintiff also claims damages from the defendants.

5. The defendants appeared before the trial Court and filed their written statement at Exh.30-A and resisted the claims and allegations made in the plaint. It is contended that the suit is not properly presented nor the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try and decide the suit. It is further denied that the acquiring authority have taken the possession from the defendants at the time of alleged acquisition. It is denied that the defendants have given the possession to the plaintiffs. It is contended that the defendants have not received any notice from acquiring authority for possession nor the possession receipt was executed and therefore, it is contended that the defendants are in possession of the suit lands.

6. It is contended that the suit property never vested with the plaintiff therefore, the suit based on title and possession is misconceived, it is further contended that the alleged possession receipt is otherwise false and bogus. It is further contended that physical possession of the land was never taken by the Government Officer or any officer of the University therefore, defendants pray for dismissal of the suit.

7. It is further contended that the plaintiff university has filed various suits against the various agriculturists and in the said suit the learned Civil Court was pleased to dismiss the said suit filed by the plaintiff university. The appellants crave to rely on the judgment and decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 188/83 as and when required in the interest of justice.

8. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties, framed various issues and after hearing the parties on merits, decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide common judgment and decree dated 31-8-1998.

9. The present appellant aggrieved by the common judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, preferred R.C.A.Nos.15/99 and 16/99 before District Judge, Ahmednagar. The Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, after hearing the matter on merits, pleased to dismiss the appeals filed by defendants, by its common judgment and decree dated 12-6-2003, hence this Second Appeal.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the actual possession of the suit property has not been taken by original plaintiff from the defendant-appellant. It is also nowhere mentioned in the suit that on which date, the possession of the suit land was taken by the respondent-plaintiffs. It is further submitted that the plaintiff university has never received actual possession of the suit land, the university has not proved the possession receipts as required under law. It is further submitted that it was obligatory on the lower appellate Court to frame all the necessary issues and findings thereon. It is further submitted that the Courts