Raj Kishore Prasad, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal arises on a certificate granted by Misra J., against his judgment dated the 21st April 1954, in Second Appeal No. 1928 of 1949, affirming the judgment and decree of the first court of appeal allowing the plaintiff-appellant compensation amounting to Rs. 700/- in lieu of the encroachment made on his land by the defendants-respondents.
(2.) The only question, which has been argued by Mr. Lal Narayan Sinha, Government Advocate, appearing for the plaintiff appellant is that on the finding of the court of appeal below that: "Both the parties were labouring under some sort of mistake about their respective rights in regard to the encroached portion of the land. Somehow, a boundary dispute cropped up long after the appellants' (that is, the defendants') construction which progressed for several months without any protest, and then it was found out that there had been an encroachment." no question of acquiescence or waiver in law can possibly arise, and, as such, the finding on the question of acquiescence is erroneous in law; rather, it is negatived by the above finding of the court of appeal below itself. As a corollary to his contention, Mr. Sinha has further argued that if his contention is accepted to be correct, then there is no question of awarding compensation in lieu of the encroachment, as such a procedure is not warranted by law.
(3.) In order to appreciate the argument of the learned Government Advocate, it is necessary to know briefly the relevant facts bearing on this question.;