2025:HHC:20092 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.4/2020 Date of Decision: 26th June, 2025. Jubli Ram .....Appellant Versus State of HP …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: None. For the Respondent: Mr. R.P. Singh, Dy. Advocate General. 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 22.02.2019, passed by the Learned Additional District Judge(III), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.04-B/XIII/2016, affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2014, passed by the Learned Assistant Collector, First Grade, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, HP, in Civil Suit No.1/Teh/2012. 2. The plaintiff's case is that his grandfather, late Sh. Sali Ram, constructed a kaccha khokha over the land comprised in Khasra No. 507/2/1 measuring 0-00-25 hectare situated in Mohal Sansal, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra (hereinafter referred to as the "suit land"). His grandfather was a leprosy patient and had to live outside the village due to social boycott. On 25 April 1974, despite objections from the local Panchayat and the Revenue Department, he took possession of the suit 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 2025:HHC:20092 land and lived there until his death, after which the plaintiff inherited the khokha despite opposition from the villagers. The plaintiff has been using the land as a residential house and shop since his grandfather's death and claims to have no other residential property. He asserts that he remained in continuous, uninterrupted, open, and hostile possession of the khokha for the statutory period of 30 years, from 25 April 1974 to 26 April 2004, and that the defendant has waived its right to claim possession or evict him. The plaintiff further contends that the proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, initiated by the AC 2nd Grade, Baijnath, were wrongful and contrary to law. He claims that the learned District Judge, Kangra, rightly allowed his appeal by setting aside the order of the court below. 3. The defendant, the State of Himachal Pradesh, filed a written statement opposing the plaintiff's claims. Apart from preliminary objections, the defendant contested the plaint on merits, raising issues of maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction of the court, and concealment of material facts. On merits, the defendant denied that the plaintiff or his grandfather were in possession of the suit land in 1974 or that any kaccha khokha was constructed at that time. It also refuted the allegation that the Gram Panchayat or Revenue Department attempted to prevent possession in 1974. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff illegally constructed a shop on the suit 3 2025:HHC:20092 land without government permission and that the ejectment order passed by the AC 2nd Grade, Baijnath, was lawful and based on factual findings. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff concocted a false story to unlawfully grab government land and that the plea of adverse possession was untenable since the plaintiff was a mere encroacher acting in bad faith for personal gain. The defendant prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim of adverse possession. 4. In his replication, the plaintiff denied the defendant's objections as false, illegal, and contrary to facts and law. He reiterated his claim of adverse possession and asserted his exclusive title over the suit land. 5. After carefully considering the pleadings, evidence, and arguments advanced by Sh. Surender Thakur, learned counsel for the plaintiff, and Sh. Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the defendant, the following issues were framed for determination: 1. Whether the plaintiff has become the owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPP. 2. Whether the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land is open, continuous, uninterrupted, hostile, and within the knowledge of the defendant since April 1974? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff is a mere encroacher over the land of the defendant? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD. 8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not valued properly for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD. 9. Whether the court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD. 10. Relief. 4 2025:HHC:20092 6. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appeal met the same fate, leading to the filing of the present second appeal. 7. Heard counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned judgments. 8. Upon a critical analysis of the plaintiff's evidence, this Court finds that the plaintiff and his witnesses have failed to establish the foundational requirement of hostile possession at its inception—a crucial element for claiming adverse possession. While the plaint alleges that the plaintiff’s grandfather took possession of the suit land on 25th April 1974, neither the plaintiff nor his witnesses specified this date in their testimonies, instead vaguely referring to the period 1973-74. The plaintiff’s assertion that he inherited the land in 1975-76 at the age of five is inherently improbable, casting serious doubt on his claim. Further, contradictions emerge among the witnesses—PW-2 claimed the plaintiff took possession in 1973- 74, whereas PW-3 stated the grandfather initially occupied the land, with the plaintiff inheriting it later. These inconsistencies, coupled with the absence of any specific date or documentary evidence, render the plaintiff’s narrative unreliable. Crucially, there is no evidence demonstrating that the possession was open, notorious, or hostile to the true owner—the State. 9. The defendant’s evidence, on the other hand, conclusively establishes that the land belongs to the 5 2025:HHC:20092 Government of Himachal Pradesh and is recorded as part of the Reserve Pool (Tabe Hakuk Vartandaran). The tatima (Ex. DW1/A) confirms the encroached land abuts a road and adjoins government school property. The show-cause notice (Ex. DW1/B) issued to the plaintiff in 2009 further substantiates the State’s claim that the plaintiff illegally occupied the land and constructed a khokha. The testimonies of the State’s witnesses corroborate the encroachment’s timing and extent, leaving no room for doubt regarding the plaintiff’s unlawful possession. 10. The law on adverse possession is unequivocal: mere long possession does not suffice unless it is hostile, continuous, open, and under a claim of right, with the true owner’s knowledge. As correctly held in judgment relied upon by the Courts below namely Amba Gokal vs. Parbat Bhuta, (1992)(1) Guj. L R 399 and Jahural Islam vs. Abul Kalam, AIR 1991 Cal 132, the claimant must distinctly plead and prove when and how the possession turned adverse. The plaintiff herein has not only failed to establish the inception of hostile possession but has also not demonstrated any overt act asserting adverse title. His vague and contradictory assertions, devoid of specificity or corroborative evidence, fall short of the legal requirements. 11. In light of the foregoing, the plaintiff’s claim of adverse possession is unsustainable. The plaintiff’s possession, being illegal and unsubstantiated by evidence, cannot mature into 6 2025:HHC:20092 ownership. The findings of the courts below dismissing the suit and the first appeal are upheld, and the present second appeal lacks merit. 12. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law, much-less a substantial question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 26th June, 2025 (T.B/Gaurav Rawat)