As per case facts, the original plaintiff (respondent No. 1) filed a Civil Suit challenging the cancellation of a land permit initially issued to Shri Liantudaia, which was subsequently partially ... sold and whose remaining portion was later acquired by respondent No. 2. The land was partially occupied by the appellants (Union of India/BRTF). The Permit's area was later re-evaluated and re-issued. The cancellation of this re-issued permit by the Revenue Department led to the original suit. The appellants were later impleaded. The Trial Court set aside the cancellation, upheld the permit's validity, and directed the appellants to either hand over possession or acquire the land and pay rental compensation. The appeal to this Court arose because the appellants contended the Trial Court erred in its findings regarding the permit's validity, the actual land area, and the liability for compensation and possession, arguing that their occupation was lawful and the land was already acquired. The central legal question for this court was whether the Trial Court correctly found the cancellation order illegal and null, and accurately determined the land's area and the appellants' liability for its occupation and compensation. Finally, this court found no grounds to interfere with the Trial Court's judgment and order, dismissing the appeal.