The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is limited to substantial questions of law, and adverse possession must be proven with evidence to claim ownership of government land.

ORDER :

1. Present Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellants – original plaintiff against the concurrent findings of the learned courts below arising out of the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

2. Factual matrix of the case is as under:

2.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is resident of Mangrol and having his own agricultural land of Survey No.1394/5 known as Basar and surrounding to this land, there are many agricultural lands of different farmers. It is the case of the plaintiff that on the eastern side of his land, there is government land known as Bal land and the said land is in height of 3 to 4 ft. to the level of his land and hence they are using the said land for keeping agricultural equipments, storing cattle, food, etc and they are using the said land since his forefathers without any kind of obstructions from the Government. It is alleged that the said land of the government is approximately 3 Bighas and the plaintiff is going to his field through the way passing from the said land of the government and he has made boundary by making construction and thereby made huge expenses.

2.2. It is further the case of the plaintiff that for regularization of the said land, he had made an application to the defendants, but the defendants have not denied for the same and now a days, people of Kharva community of Porbandar are trying to take possession of the said land from the Government and they have made construction upto the plinth level over the said land for houses and the government is ignoring the said act of the said peoples of Kharva community and the defendants are also trying to snatch away possession of this land from him and willing to give the said to the aforesaid peoples. It is submitted that if the defendants are succeeded to do so, the plaintiff will suffer a great irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

3. The suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed vide judgement and decree dated 12/2/2007 and appeal preferred against the said judgement and decree being Regular Civil Appeal No.16 of 2017 also came to be dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Keshod. However interim has been vacated, however, the District Court has directed the respondents that in case of taking possession, they should follow due process of law.

4. Heard Mr.S.A. Qureshi, learned advocate for the appellant at length and examined the findings of both the courts below on the issues raised in the suit. Upon examination of the judgement and order of both the courts below, learned advocate for the plaintiff - appellant is unable to point out any infirmity, perversity or impropriety in the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by both the courts below. Not only that the learned advocate for the appellant is unable to show that any finding recorded by the courts below is without any evidence or there is any illegality in the findings, except making request to regularise the possession of the suit land.

5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the concurrent findings of the courts below, this Court is of the opinion that the Civil Court has no such power or jurisdiction to take care of the grievance of the plaintiff – appellant. It is undisputed fact that the suit land is government waste land and is of the ownership of the government and the plaintiff has kept the said land illegally and without any permission of the government and both the courts below have rightly observed and held that the plaintiff has no cause to remain on the land as the plaintiff is not holding any legal title over the suit land. Under the circumstances, this Court does not find any error to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below in exercise of the powers under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the jurisdiction of this Court is confined only to the substantial