JUDGMENT :

The state of Himachal Pradesh/respondent herein, initiated ejectment proceedings, under Section 163 of Land Revenue Act against one Ram Rattan/appellant herein, alleging therein that the afore Ram Rattan had made encroachment over government land, to the extent of 6 biswa of land comprised in khata/khatauni 10 min/15 khasra No. 42 situated in village Sona Khurad, Tehsil Kandaghat (for short “suit land”), and, that hence the afore Ram Rattan be evicted. However, during the pendency of the afore proceedings, before the Revenue Officer concerned, Ram Rattan claimed acquisition of title over the suit land, on the basis of adverse possession. He also claimed that reflections in the apposite column of the Jamabandi appertaining to the suit land qua the State of Himachal Pradesh being owner of the suit land, rather being erroneous. The Revenue Court concerned hence converted itself into a Civil Court, and, thereupon, Ram rattan, instituted a suit before it, claiming therein, that he has acquired valid title over the suit land through adverse possession.

2. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade (functioning as Civil Court u/s 163(3) of H.P land Revenue Act) (for short A.C 1st Grade) Kandaghat District Solan, H.P, after framing the hereinafter extracted issues, on the contentious pleadings of the contesting litigants, returned findings hence adversarial to the plaintiff Ram Rattan, upon, Issue No.1. Moreover, the A.C 1st Grade proceeded to render dis-affirmative findings on issue No.2 .

“1. Whether the plaintiff Shri Ram rattan etc have become owner of the land by adverse possession if so its effect….OPP

2. Whether the State of HP has the right to evict Sh. Ram Rattan etc from the suit land……..OPD”

3. In the operative portion of the verdict drawn by the A.C 1st Grade, the hereinafter extracted directions were made:-

“Both issues 1 and 2 are answered in the negative. The plaintiff is not declared to have become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Also the defendant State has no right to evict the plaintiff from the suit land. Proceedings u/s 163 of HP Land Rev. Act are set-aside. The defendant is further restrained from causing any interference in the suit land either by itself or through agents or any official what so ever. Both parties are asked to bear their own cost. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. File be consigned to G.R.R. after due completion.”

4. The State of Himachal Pradesh being aggrieved from the afore drawn verdict, preferred there-against Case No. 11FTC/13 of 2008 before the learned Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan, District Solan, H.P. Ram Rattan also became aggrieved from the findings recorded by the A.C 1st Grade upon issue No.1 (supra), and, also hence preferred within the afore case No. 11FTC/13 of 2008, cross objections No. 15 FTC/13 of 2008.

5. Both the afore appeal, and, cross-objections became decided through a common verdict being rendered thereons by the learned first Appellate Court.

6. The learned first Appellate Court, in the operative part, of its verdict, accepted the appeal preferred before it, by the aggrieved State of Himachal Pradesh, and, also proceeded to dismiss the cross-objections reared by Ram Rattan against findings adversarial to him, as, become rendered, upon, issue No.1 by the A.C 1st Grade.

7. The appellant Ram Rattan (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff”) became aggrieved from the verdict (supra) hence recorded by the learned first Appellate Court, and, has hence instituted the instant RSA before this Court.

8. When the instant appeal came up for admission, this Court admitted it, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:-

“2. Whether area in question never vested in Gram Panchayat Sakori, nor in the State of HP in accordance with law and therefore, ejectment proceedings under section-163 of HP Land Revenue Act could not be initiated.

5. Whether the Respondent merely by changing entries in the revenue record cannot be held to be owner o