The plea of adverse possession must be bonafide and supported by evidence to be considered valid.

Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.05.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Una (H.P.) in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 31 of 2009.

2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal, are that the respondent-State has initiated the proceedings against the appellants under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for brevity sake). Appellants were served with a notice on 3rd October, 2009. Thereafter, he filed the reply to the notice on 12th October, 2009. Rejoinder was filed by the State on 16.10.2009. Issues were framed by the AC-Ist Grade. The learned AC-Ist Grade held that the appellants have failed to prove their claim or interest over the disputed land, which was owned and possessed by the Government. He ordered the preparation of warrant of ejectment, with a further direction to send the same to the Field Kanungo Chururu for implementation in accordance with law vide order dated 09.11.2009. Appellants preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge against the order dated 09.11.2009. Learned Additional District Judge, Una rejected the appeal on 24.05.2010. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal.

3. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge was maintainable against the order dated 09.11.2009.

4. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General has supported the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge dated 24.05.2010.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.

6. What emerges from the pleadings, is that the respondent-State has initiated the proceedings against the appellants on 30.09.2009 vide encroachment case No. 06 of 2009. The proceedings were initiated against the appellants on the basis of complaint filed by the General Public of Village Dhandri, Tehsil Amb, District Una. The villagers had blocked the vehicular traffic on Amb-Una Highway on 28th September, 2009 against the encroachment over Government land comprised in Khewat No. 448, Khatauni No. 933 min, Khasra No. 2692, as per Jamabandi for the year 2006-2007 by the appellants. This land was transferred to Education Department and was used as a playground by the children studying in Government Primary School Dhandri. The Gram Panchayat had started the work for raising a boundary wall to fence the play ground. The appellant encroached upon some portion of the land by digging plinth, which has been described as Khasra No. 2692/1 and had obstructed the construction work. Thereafter, the revenue field staff demarcated the land comprised in Khasra No. 2692 in the presence of all the residents of village Dhandri on 29th September, 2009 and found the encroachment over Government land comprised in Khasra No. 2692/1, measuring 0-00-70 Hects on the spot. The revenue papers were prepared and submitted in the Court of AC-Ist Grade on 30th September, 2009. A notice was issued to the appellants on 03.10.2009, to which they filed reply on 12.10.2009. Appellant No. 1 had instituted a Civil Suit No. 33 of 1991 in the Court of learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Court No. (1), Amb, seeking the decree of declaration and perpetual injunction. The certified copy of the judgment was supplied by Mr. Anup Rattan, learned counsel for the appellants during the course of hearing. Learned Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Court No. (I), Amb, District Una has framed the following issues in Civil Suit No. 33 of 1991:

“1. Whether the plaintiff was earlier in possession of the suit land to the extent of 1 Kanal denoted by letters ABCD in the site plan as tenant as alleged and has now become owner of the same under the H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act? OPP.

2. Whether the entry in favour of the defendant is wrong qua the suit land? OPP.

3. Whether the mutation No. 2396, dated 24.9.86, is w