GANGA VARTI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs/appellants lost their case in both the courts below, hence the present Regular Second Appeal, which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) APPELLANTS hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs ' filed suit claiming themselves to be in adverse possession of the suit land owned by the respondent -State. According to them, the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur had wrongly allotted the land comprised in khasra No. 1362/2 measuring 0 -20 -07 hectares under the Nautor Rules to respondent No. 2 Shri Hari Dev and also a part of suit khasra No. 1355/1 and 1356/1 measuring 0 -19 -77 hectares in favour of defendant -respondent No. 3, real brother of defendant No. 2. It is alleged that defendants had been threatening to disturb the right and peaceful possession since their forefathers over the suit land hence the plaintiffs sought declaration to the effect that they have become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession and also declaring allotment in favour of the defendants as wrong and illegal with a consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing their possession.

(3.) PRIVATE defendants No. 2 and 3 also took up similar preliminary objections as that of defendant No. 1. Even the adverse possession over the suit land was denied. The land was stated to be allotted to them under the Nautor Rules. Further, during the inquiry under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act with respect to the encroachment made, earlier in the year 1992, plaintiffs No. 2 stated having possessed the land only in the year 1992 and having raised single room and planted apple plants. Prior to that the suit land was barren and vacant owned by the State Government. Therefore, there was no question of adverse possession.