Adverse possession claims require substantial proof of open, continuous possession and are barred from consideration in Civil Courts when conflicting with revenue orders under the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.12.2014, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., (learned First Appellate Court), vide which the appeal filed by the appellant (plaintiff before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 16.1.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) was afirmed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before learned Trial Court for seeking a declaration that he is owner-in-possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 387/346/2 being part of Khasra No.387/346, Khata/Khatauni No. 118 min/145min situated in Village Behna Brahmna, Pargna Gerhwin, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P., (hereinafter referred as the suit land) by way of adverse possession and the entries in favour of State of H.P., are wrong, illegal, null and void. Further declaration that the order dated 16.10.1999 passed by learned AC-1st Grade/Tehsildar, Jhandutta, in case File No. 40/133 of 1998, order dated 11.12.2001 passed by learned Collector, Sub Division Ghumarwin in case file No. 802 of 2000, order dated 24.1.2003 passed by learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (exercising the power of Commissioner), Bilaspur in case file No. 11/2002 and order dated 21.10.2005, passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) in Revenue Revision No. 72/2003 are wrong, illegal, null and void. A consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit land or changing its nature, ejecting the plaintiff or allotting any part of the suit land to any person was also sought. A relief of possession in the alternative was prayed in case the plaintiff is dispossessed from the suit land during the pendency of the suit. It was asserted that the father of the plaintiffo encroached upon the suit land in July 1963. He developed it and made it cultivable. He separated the plaintiff and put him in possession of the suit land in the year 1978. The plaintiff constructed a water storage tank, kitchen, and cowshed and established a ‘Devsthan’ in the suit land. He cultivated the rest of the suit land. He is using part of the suit land as a courtyard and part of the suit land for storage of fuel wood and tethering of cattle. The plaintiff constructed a shed in the year 1985. No one objected to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The possession of the plaintiff over the suit land is open, peaceful, physical, cultivable, continuous, without any interruption and to the knowledge of the public at large. The plaintiff has perfected his title by adverse possession. The plaintiff planted about 50 mango and guava trees over the suit land. Learned AC-1st Grade/Tehsildar passed an order of ejectment against the plaintiff in case file No. 40/13 of 1998 on 16.10.1999. This order was affirmed by the learned Collector on 11.12.2001 in case file No. 802 of 2000. Learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur (exercising the power of Commissioner) affirmed the order vide order dated 24.1.2003 passed in case file No. 11/2u002. A revision No. 72/2003 preferred against the order was dismissed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) o