Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAJIV SHARMA, J.
Abhia @ Abhi Ram - Appellant
Versus
State Of H.P. - Respondent
RSA No. 287 of 2011
Decided on : 19-07-2011
Land Dispute - Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act - Section 171, Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act - Section 104 - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of ownership of a land, claiming adverse possession and challenging the revenue entries. The defendants contested the suit, denying the plaintiffs' ownership and asserting that the land was declared as forest land and was in possession of the State Government.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit land was declared as forest land and mutations were attested in favor of the Forest Department. The plaintiffs' claim of adverse possession was rejected as they failed to prove continuous possession and hostility towards the true owner. The court also noted that the plaintiffs' claim of ownership under the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act was not valid as the land was declared as forest land.
Issues: The issues involved the ownership of the land, the validity of revenue entries, and the claim of adverse possession by the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal evidence of hostile possession and denial of the true owner's title. The court also emphasized the need for continuous, open, and visible possession to establish adverse possession. Additionally, the court highlighted the importance of proving title deeds or adverse possession for a period exceeding thirty years in suits against the government.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, affirming the lower court's decision and finding no substantial question of law involved.
JUDGMENT :
Rajiv Sharma, J.
This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.3.2011 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No.61-S/13 of 2009.
2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the appellants plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as `plaintiffs' for convenience sake) instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession of the suit land, detailed in the plaint, and the revenue entries qua the suit land in the name of State in the column of ownership were wrong, illegal and void and not binding upon them and the they have also sought a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from causing any inference in the suit land in any manner whatsoever. In the alter alternative, they have claimed ownership by way of adverse possession as they had been coming in continuous possession of the suit land as owners on payment of land revenue since 1958-59 and the possession was never given up and the same had been continuous and ripened into the right of ownership. According to them, the cause of action arose in their favour when the Halqua Patwari of village Bisha threatened to interfere in the suit land on the basis of wrong revenue entries.
3. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement. According to them, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction under section 171 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. On merits, defendants denied that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land. According to them, the entries in the revenue record showing the ownership of the State of Himachal Pradesh were correct. The plaintiffs have not chosen to file replication to the written statement filed by the defendants. The trial court framed the issues on 3.8.2005. The trial court decreed the suit on 30.7.2009. Defendants preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Solan. He allowed the same on 5.3.2011. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal.
4. Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed along with the memorandum of appeal has vehemently argued that the learned Additional District Judge has mis-appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties. According to him, Ex.PW-1/B to Ex.PW-1/K and Ex.DW-4/A to Ex.DW-4/F have not been correctly appreciated. According to him, as per these entries, plaintiffs were in possession as tenants and they have become owners by virtue of section 104 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. According to him, the suit land could not be declared forest land as per Ex.DW-2/B. He has also argued that in the alternative, the plaintiffs have become owners by way of adverse possession.
5. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has supported the judgment and decree dated 5.3.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Solan.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.
7. Plaintiff No.1, Abhi Ram, has appeared as PW-1. He has led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A. He has tendered copy of jamabandi for the year 1954-55 (Ex.PW-1/B), copies of mutation Ex.PW- 1/C and Ex. PW-1/D, copy of jamabandi for the year 1958-59 (Ex.PW-1/E), copy of jamabandi for the year 1962-63 (Ex.PW-1/F), copy of jamabandi for the year 1967-68 (Ex.PW-1/G), copy of Fard Badar Ex.PW-1/H, copy of jamabandi for the year 1981-82 (Ex.PW-1/J), copy of jamabandi for the year 1995-96 (Ex.PW-1/K), copy of power of attorney Ex.PW-1/L, copy of notice Ex. PW-1/M, copy of postal receipt Ex.PW-1/P. He has denied the suggestion that the State Government was in possession of the suit land. He has also denied the suggestion with regard to correctness of the revenue entries pertaining to the suit land.
8. PW-2 Krishan Singh has also led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-2/A. He has supported the version of PW-1. According to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
