Adverse possession cannot establish ownership if initially permissive; legal rights upheld over claims based on insufficient proof.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).

The appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 14.01.2022 passed by the Learned Addl. District Judge (I), District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 13-D/XIII/2016 affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2015 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Suit No.289/09/2006.

2. The facts giving rise to the present second appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a civil suit before the learned trial Court seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

defendants No. 1 & 2 from executing the orders dated 22.05.2001 and 21.08.2001, passed in his absence, and from evicting him from the land comprising Khata No. 225 min, Khataure No. 424, Khasra No. 273 (old Khasra No. 782, 782/1, 782/2), measuring 0-00-16 hectares, situated in Mohal Mcleodganj, Mauza Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., as per Jamabandi for the year 1997-98 (hereinafter referred to as the "suit land"), as well as from demolishing his house existing thereon. The plaintiff also sought a mandatory injunction directing defendants No. 1 & 2 to restore the house consisting of 7 rooms and the suit land to its original position if demolished forcibly and further claimed ownership by way of adverse possession due to uninterrupted possession prior to 1977-

78.

3. It was pleaded that the suit land is recorded in the ownership of defendant No. 1 (State of Himachal Pradesh) but in the plaintiff’s possession as "Tabe-Haqook-Bartan-Bartandaran." The plaintiff asserted that he constructed a house consisting of 6 rooms with one kitchen in 1977-78, which is reflected in revenue records as "Gair-Mumkin-Rihaishi-Makan-Ek-Manjla," and has been residing there for the last 45 years. He claimed to have purchased a "Khokha" along with material for Rs. 1,200/- on 27.06.1977 from one Roshan Lal, demolished it, and constructed his residential house, obtaining electricity connection thereafter. The plaintiff contended that defendants No. 1 & 2 never objected to his construction and that he has been in continuous possession. He alleged that defendants intended to forcibly evict him under the garb of the order dated 21.08.2001 and that he had earlier filed a similar suit, which was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.

4. The defendants No. 1 to 3 resisted the suit by filing a written statement raising preliminary objections regarding locus standi, maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction, estoppel, res judicata, and limitation. On merits, they disputed the sufficiency of the suit land’s description, clarifying that the old Khasra No. of Khasra No. 273 was 682, not 782. They asserted that the suit land belongs to the State of Himachal Pradesh and that the plaintiff encroached upon it by constructing a "Khokha." They denied the possibility of any private sale, emphasizing that transfer of such land requires a registered document. During the settlement operations of 1977-78, the plaintiff was recorded as an encroacher in the Missal Haqiat, and eviction proceedings were initiated. They further stated that the plaintiff had also encroached upon Khasra Nos. 782/1 & 782/2, for which eviction orders under Section 5(1) of the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1971, were passed on 22.05.2001, and a warrant for dispossession was issued on 21.10.2001, though execution was stalled due to the plaintiff’s legal maneuvers.

5. Additionally, eviction proceedings were initiated in 1990, resulting in an order dated 06.10.1990 by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Dharamshala, which was upheld in appeal by the Collector on 13.09.1995. The plaintiff did not challenge the Collector’s order but instead filed a civil sui