S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 28th June, 2005 passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in M.A. No. 18/95 and/or to modify/ alter the said order, whereby and where under, the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised (Occupants) Act, 1971, has been dismissed and the order dated 7th August, 1995 passed by the Estate Officer, Chakradharpur in Case No. 44 of 1990 has been affirmed. The petitioner has also challenged the aforesaid order dated 7th August, 1995 passed by the Estate Officer, Chakradharpur in EC Case No. 44 of 1990, whereby and where under the application preferred by the Union of India to evict the petitioner from the land, measuring 168 x 15 = total of 2520 Sq. ft., has been allowed holding the land as Railway land within the premises of Chakradharpur Railway Station.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not a tress -passer. In fact, the father of the petitioner late Sankata Singh was in possession of the land, in question, for more than forty years. He built rooms, shops and hotel about forty years back and inducted tenants therein and was in continuous peaceful possession, followed by peaceful possession of petitioner since his death. By virtue of long standing uninterrupted possession for more than forty years, adversely to the interest of the real owner, the petitioner has perfected his title to the proceeding land by adverse possession and consequently initiation of the proceeding was barred by limitation. It was further submitted that the Union of India could not have preferred the application for eviction even if it is presumed to be the Railway land.
(3.) THE question whether the father of petitioner and thereafter the petitioner are in uninterrupted possession of the land, in question, for more than forty years adversely to the interest of the real owner and perfected their title to the proceeding land by adverse possession or not, is a question of fact, which can be determined on the basis of evidence. The aforesaid plea was taken by the petitioner before the Court of original jurisdiction and the appellate Court, but in absence of any evidence in support of such claim, it was not accepted by both the Courts. There being concurrent finding of fact, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal nor can decide such issue.;