J U D G M E N T

The State of Himachal Pradesh/respondent herein initiated ejectment proceedings under Section 163 of Land Revenue Act against appellants herein (for short “plaintiffs”), in respect of land khasra No. 698/403, 588/1 and 685 min measuring 39-17 bighas situated in mauza Chohra, Pargana Chail, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. (for short “suit land”). However, during the pendency of the afore proceedings before the Revenue Officer concerned, the plaintiffs 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, the plaintiffs, instituted a suit before it, claiming therein that they have acquired a valid title over the suit land through adverse possession.

st

2. The Assistant Collector, 1 Grade (functioning as Civil

st

Court u/s 163(3) of H.P land Revenue Act) (for short A.C 1 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 st appellants/plaintiffs therein, upon Issue No.1. Moreover, the A.C 1 Grade proceeded to render dis-affirmative findings on issue No.2 .

“1. Whether the plaintiff’s have become owner of the suit land by adverse possession-if so its effect……OPP

2. Whether the State of H.P has the right to evict the plaintiffs’ from the suit land. OPD”

st

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

“After going through the evidence on record and the arguments put forward I am of the view that the plaintiff’s plea of adverse possession does not hold whereas the State being the actual owner has every right to correct the Revenue entries in its favour and to evict the plaintiffs from the suit land. They are accordingly ordered to be evicted from the sut land. However the defendant state is restrained from evicting the plaintiff from the house constructed in khasra No. 685 minmeasuring 0-9 biswas which was constructed in 1970 and which was not to be vested with the State Govt. as per sub-section 2 (c) of Section 3 of H.P Village Common Land Vesting and Utilisation Act, 1974. Parties are directed to bear their own cost. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. File be consigned to G.R.R after due compliance.”

4. The appellants herein being aggrieved from the afore drawn verdict, preferred there-against Case No. 39 FTC/13 of 2007 before the learned District Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan, District Solan, H.P. The State of H.P also became aggrieved from the findings st recorded by the A.C 1 Grade upon issue No.2 (supra) and hence preferred within the afore case No. 39 FTC/13 of 2007, cross objections No. 39 FTC/13 of 2008.

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

6. The learned first Appellate Court, in the operative part of its verdict, dismissed the appeal preferred before it, by the aggrieved appellants herein, and, also proceeded to accept the cross- objections reared by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the adversarial findings recorded against it, upon issue No.2, by the A.C

st

1 Grade.

7. The appellants (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiffs”) became aggrieved from the verdict hence recorded by the learned first Appellate Court, 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 Respondent has not acquired title of ownership over suit lands keeping in view the fact that land in suit was previously in separately and exclusive possession of the predecessor of the appella