A person in adverse possession cannot claim ownership against a true owner, and relief for regularization must be pursued through the competent authority, not the Civil Court.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, vide which the appeal filed by the appellants (plaintiffs before learned Trial Court) was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.3, Mandi was upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter referred to in the same manner in which they were arrayed before the learned trial court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit before the learned Trial Court seeking a declaration that they are owners in possession of the land comprised in Khewat No.639 min, Khatauni No.859, Khasra Nos.1043, 1165, Kita - 2, measuring 448.64 square meters, situated at Mohal Tarna / 366/5, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.(hereinafter referred to as the suit land) and the revenue entries in favour of defendant no.1 are wrong. It was asserted that the suit land is recorded in the ownership of defendant no.1 and in possession of Ghauna Ram, father of the plaintiffs. He possessed the suit land as "Kabiz Nazayaj". He constructed a water channel over Khasra No. 1043 and raised an Orchard over Khasra No.1165. He died on 19.12.1988. The plaintiffs came in possession after his death. The possession of the plaintiffs is continuous, peaceful,and uninterrupted and they have become the owners by way of adverse possession. The defendants issued a notice on 19.07.2013 asking the plaintiffs to remove the boundary wall stated to have been constructed on the Government land. The plaintiffs have raised construction on their land. The defendants interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs. Defendant no.3 demolished the part of the house of the plaintiff i.e. latrine, bathroom and kitchen. Hence the suit was filed to seek relief mentioned above.

3. The suit was opposed by defendants no.1 and 2 by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections that the High Court of H.P. has taken cognizance of the subject matter in dispute and directed the Municipal Committee to dismantle the unauthorized construction raised over the Government land within the area of Municipal Council, Mandi. The plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands and suppressed this fact from the Court. The plaintiffs are in illegal possession of Khasra No.1043. The plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the suit land. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. Defendant No. 3 filed a separate written statement taking preliminary objection regarding lack of maintainability due to non - issuance of notice under Sector 43 of H.P. Municipal Act. It was asserted that the High Court of Himachal Pradesh had directed the Municipal Council, Mandi to dismantle twenty unauthorized construction over the Government land within its jurisdiction. The Supervisor of the Municipal Council, Mandi noticed that Khushi Ram encroaching upon the Government land. Khushi Ram had constructed 3 feet retaining wall. The matter was reported to the Municipal Council, Mandi. Notice was served upon Khushi Ram under S.39 of the H.P. Town and Country Planning Act; however, he continued with the construction; hence, action was taken against him. The order of the High Court specifically applied to the construction raised by Khushi Ram, which fact was concealed from the Court. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

5. A replication denying the contents of the written statement and affirming those of the plaint was filed.

6. Learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 06.11.2013: -
1. Whether the plaintiffs be declared owners in possession of the suit land, as alleged?