WA 99/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 18.3.2011 passed by a learned Sin gle Judge in WP(C) No.257 (SH) 2010. The respondents had acquired a large chunk of land measuring 746 Bighas for an I ntegrated Housing and Slum Development Programme. For the purposes of the acquisition, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 26.4.1975. Some objections appear to have been rec eived by the respondents and they were dealt with under Section 5 A of the Act. Thereafter a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 21.6.1975. It is significant to note at this stage that the appellants, who claim to be in occupation of the acquired land, did not file any objections under Section 5A of the Act. It is also important to note that as a step in the acquisition, the en tire compensation was paid to the Nokma who was the owner of the land. It appears that some time in 2003, the Nokma handed over possession of a part of the acquired land to the appellants and on the basis of their occupation, the a ppellants were granted a patta by the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (fo r short GHADC ). According to the appellants, they were already in occupation o f the land and the Nokma only formalized their possession. We are told that though the patta was later cancelled by the GHDAC, it was resto red since the laid down procedures were not followed by the authorities for the cancellation. The Deputy Commissioner of the Garo Hills initiated eviction proceeding against the appellants since, according to him, the appellant were encroachers on the ac quired land. Eviction Case No.TVG 7/2009 was then initiated by the appellants against the evi ction proceedings started by the Deputy Commissioner. The appellants also prefer red a writ petition in this Court being WP(C) No. 153(SH)/2009 against their evi ction. This writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by an order da ted 4.9.2009. It may be mentioned in passing that in the writ petition out of which the presen t proceedings have arisen, there was only a vague mention about WP(C) No.153(SH) /2009 as has been noted by the learned Single Judge. While the learned Single Ju dge has hinted at concealment of a material fact, he has not based his decision on that concealment. The appellants also initiated a title suit being TS No.10/2010 for a declaration that they were the owners of the land under their occupation. The plaint was re turned to the appellants. The appellants thereafter filed FAO No.1(SH)/2011 whic h was withdrawn by them on 16.3.2011. With regard to the eviction case initiated against eviction order being Eviction Case No.TVG 7/2009, a decision was taken by the Deputy Commissioner against the appellants and it was held that they have no right, title or interest in the la nd in question. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants preferred an appeal being Revenue Appeal No.MB R/RA.4 of 2010. This appeal was dismissed by the Board of Revenue by an order da ted 20.7.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the Board of Revenue, the ap pellants preferred a writ petition out of which the order under challenge has ar isen. To sum up, therefore, Eviction Case No. TVG 7/2009 was decided against the appel lants. An appeal being Revenue Appeal No.MBR/RA 4 of 2010 against that order was also dismissed on 20.7.2010. A writ petition filed by the appellant being WP(C) No.153(SH)/2009 was dismissed on 4.9.2009. A title suit was filed by the appellants but the plaint was returned. FAO No.1(S H)/2011 against that order was withdrawn on 16.3.2011. The learned Single Judge has noted all the facts as we have referred to above, a nd thereafter he came to the conclusion that no case was made out for interferen ce by the Court. The learned Single Judge has noticed that certain pattas were produced before hi m. Those documents have been produced before us also. The documents were issued some time in the year 2003. There are no documents with any of the appellants to indicate that they were in possession of the land in question way back in 1975/ 1976 or soon thereafter when the acquisition proceedings were initiated. It is not clear under what circumstances the pattas were issued to the appellant s more particularly since compensation had been paid long ago to the Nokma for t he acquisition of the land. It appears that the pattas were issued under some mistaken belief by the GHADC. This has been clarified by the GHADC in its written statement filed before the B oard of Revenue where in it is stated that the land in question is a part of the land included for acquisition by the Government of Meghalaya. It is also stated in the written statement that the Nokma of the area has no control over the Gov ernment land for which compensation has already been paid. From the above, it appears that there are clear findings of fact not only in the eviction proceedings but also by the Board of Revenue and confirmed by the lear ned Single Judge that the appellants have no right, title or interest over the l and in question even though they may have obtained pattas apparently under some misunderstanding on the part of the GHADC. This misunderstanding has been clarif ied by the GHADC in their written statement filed before the Board of Revenue. There is no dispute about the fact that the Nokma, owner of the acquired land, has already received compensation for the acquisition. How the appellants claim title over the land under these circumstances is not clear. Even if the appellan ts were put in possession of the land in question by the Nokma, they have no rig ht of ownership in view of the acquisition of the land under the provisions of t he Land Acquisition Act. If at all the appellants have any grievance against the Nokma, they can take necessary steps against her, but merely because they were put in possession by the Nokma, does not mean they have a right, title or intere st over the land in question. We are in agreement with the concurrent view taken by all the authorities includ ing the learned Single Judge. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of fact concurrently arrived on more than one occasion. We find no merit in this appeal . It is accordingly dismissed. Interim order stands vacated.