The Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, specifically Sections 163 and 171, excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters of ejectment from Government land and adverse possession claims, providing an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy.

Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—The judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge-(I), Shimla, dated 13th May, 1994 is impugned in this second appeal.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be noticed:

3. Plaintiff-appellant Binni filed a suit against the defendant State of Himachal Pradesh for declaration that they have become owners of the land subject matter of dispute, situate in Chak Bag, Pargana Chehta, Sub Tehsil Kupvi in District of Shimla, by adverse possession.

4. The case of the plaintiff was: The disputed land adjoins the land of the plaintiff. Possession of the plaintiff over the disputed land was since the times of his forefathers and therefore he had became owner of this land by adverse possession. Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kupvi, issued notice to the plaintiff under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to show cause why he be not evicted from the encroached land. According to the plaintiff, eviction proceedings were initiated against him. He led evidence to show that he was in peaceful possession of the land for the last more than statutory period of 30 years but Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sub Tehsil Kupvi, inspite of the question of title having been raised by the plaintiff, proceeded to decide the question, though he did not have the jurisdiction to decide the question of title, and directed the eviction of the plaintiff from the Government land. Plaintiff pleaded that this action of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade was illegal, void and without jurisdiction. The plaintiff prayed that the orders of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kupvi, directing the eviction of the plaintiff be declared void, inoperative and without jurisdiction and plaintiff in turn be declared to be the owner in possession of the disputed land with the consequent relief of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendant-State. Jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain the suit was disputed. It was pleaded that, infact, defendant encroached on the disputed land in the year 1987 and the possession of the plaintiff was not since 1940 as claimed by the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had since been evicted on 25th May, 1989 and entry to this effect was made in the Vakyati Report Roznamcha at serial number 268.

5. Learned trial Court under issue number 7 held that the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit as defendant could not show as to how the Court was not clothed with the necessary jurisdiction. However, the suit was dismissed on the grounds that plaintiff failed to prove his adverse possession over the suit land.

6. Dis-satisfied, plaintiff carried an appeal, impugned herein, before the learned District Judge. Learned Additional District Judge affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court and found that plaintiff was not in adverse possession of the suit land.

7. Aggrieved, the plaintiff is in second appeal.

8. This appeal was admitted on 8th November, 1995 on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the appellant has acquired ownership over the suit land by virtue of adverse possession?

2. Whether the courts below took wrong view of the matter that the presumption of truth to the revenue record has not been rebutted.

3. Whether Assistant Collector Second Grade below (Kupvi), was not competent to start proceedings under Section 163 of the HP Land Revenue Act and the proceedings of ejectment as carried out by him are without jurisdiction?

4. Whether the appellant is entitled to relief of injunction, even if, he is found to have been unable to prove the plea of adverse possession?

9. I have heard learned Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer for the respondent and have perused the record.

10. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the only ques