1. The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.7.2009 passed by Court of II ADJ, Morena in Civil Appeal No.8-A of 2008 affirming the judgment and decree dated 21.1.2008 passed by the Court of Civil Judge Class I, Morena in Civil Suit No.15-A of 2005 whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendant has been dismissed. In this appeal, the appellant is referred to as “plaintiff” and the respondent as “defendant no.1”.

2. The admitted facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 State remained ex parte before the Courts below. The patta of the disputed land in the case No.25/02-03×A/19 was granted by Tahsildar on 30.6.2003 to the defendant. The said land hereinafter would be referred to as disputed land’. The appeal filed by the plaintiff against the said grant was dismissed vide order dated 31.5.2005 by SDO, Morena and the revision arising therefrom was also dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2005 by Assistant Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena.

3. The facts in brief of the case are that Gopal father of plaintiff made the land bearing survey No.618 area 0.30 and survey no.619 area 0.08 cultivable and has been cultivating it for more than 40 years. The defendant clandestinely got patta of the said land from revenue authority and has been trying to acquire possession of the same. Hence, as stated above, the plaintiff filed appeal before the Court of SDO and for revision before the Court of Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division which were dismissed. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for the relief stated above.

4. The defendant No.2/State remained ex parte before the Courts below. However, the defendant No.1 filing the written statement denied the plaint averments stating that the land in dispute is of his ownership and he is in possession of the same. The status of the plaintiff over the land in dispute was of an encroacher and the disputed land being Government land, the defendant No.2 has got the right to give patta of it. Even the appeal and revision filed by the plaintiff hav already been dismissed. Hence, it was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.

5. After framing of the seven issues, recording evidence of both the parties and having considered the recorded evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff against the defendants as stated above.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the first appellate Court which was also dismissed. Hence, this second appeal has been filed as stated herein above.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the Courts below have committed error in dismissing the suit of plaintiff for permanent injunction even though the plaintiff is in possession of the disputed land. The counsel further argued that the State Government has no right to grant a lease to the defendant Veerendra Singh as the plaintiff had been in possession of the disputed land for a long period before granting the lease.

9. The arguments were considered. Admittedly, the disputed land had never been recorded in the plaintiff’s name as bhumi swami in the khasra. Before granting lease by the State Government in favour of the defendant, the ownership of land was that of State Government which had a right to give it on patta (lease). The lease granted in favour of the defendant was challenged by the plaintiff before revenue Courts from SDO to Revenue Commissioner wherein, he had utterly failed and the lease granted in favour of the defendant has been held valid.

10. Though the possession of the plaintiff had been on the disputed land as encroacher before granting lease in favour of the defendant for which, he was fined as well as evicted from