Rama Devi & Ors. v. State of H.P & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

The case set up by the petitioners was that they had executed an agreement to purchase the subject land from Raja Joginder Sen; He was the owner of the land in dispute prior to the merger of the Mandi Princely State into the Union of India; Settlement operations were carried out in the area, and the name of Raja Joginder Sen was wrongly removed from the column of ownership in the revenue record. His name was reflected only in the column of possession as "Bila Sift". According to the petitioners, as canvassed by their learned counsel, their predecessor had moved an application before the Settlement Collector for correction of the revenue entries in favour of Raja Joginder Sen. The application was statedly pending adjudication. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners had purchased the land in dispute from Raja Joginder Sen and, therefore, could not be termed as encroachers; The petitioners have, even otherwise, perfected their title by way of adverse possession over the land. These aspects were not gone into by the learned Revenue Courts below while deciding the proceedings under Section 163 of the Act against the petitioners. 2 3 ( 2026:HHC:28327 ) Learned Deputy Advocate General defended the impugned orders.

Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and upon going through the case file, I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the three revenue authorities. 4(a) It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that they had only executed an agreement to sell/purchase the subject land with Raja Joginder Sen. No conveyance deed was ever executed in favour of the petitioners, nor any such deed was placed on record. 4(b) It is also a matter of record that the subject land is owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh. In the column of possession, there is an entry in the name of Raja Joginder Sen, son of Kishan Singh, son of Man Singh, as "Bila Sift", i.e. without any right, title or interest whatsoever. Given this, once Raja Joginder Sen did not possess any right, title or interest in the subject land, he could not have conveyed any title in favour of the petitioners. 4(c) Significantly, it is not the case of the petitioners that Raja Joginder Sen ever laid challenge to revenue record. Petitioners' claim of adverse possession was also rightly rejected by the authorities. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the pleas of adverse possession and purchase of the land could not have been taken together, as both run contrary to each other. Further, mere long possession otherwise also cannot be termed as 3 4 ( 2026:HHC:28327 ) adverse possession. Adverse possession has to be hostile to the real owner. The real owner is State of Himachal Pradesh and not Raja Joginder Sen. In this regard, it will be profitable to refer to following paras from Narasamma & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnappa (Dead) Through Legal Representatives2: - “32. The question which confronts us is not the aforesaid, but whether simultaneously a plea can be taken of title and adverse possession, i.e., whether it would amount to taking contradictory pleas. In this behalf, we may refer to the four judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondent herein, which succinctly set forth the legal position.

In Karnataka Board of Wakf case3, it has been clearly set out that a plaintiff filing a title over the property must specifically plead it. When such a plea of adverse possession is projected, it is inherent in the nature of it that someone else is the owner of the property. In that context, it was observed in para 12 that “….the pleas on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the 9(supra) former is renounced….”

The aforesaid judgment in turn relied upon the judgment in Mohan Lal4, which observed in para 4 as under: “4. As regards the first plea, it is inconsistent with the second plea. Having come into possession under the agreement, he must disclaim his right thereunder and plead and prove assertion of his independent hostile adverse possession to the knowledge of the transferor or his successor in title or interest and that the latter had acquiesced to his illegal possession during the entire period of 12 years, i.e., upto completing the period of his title by prescription nec vi, nec clam, nec precario. Since the appellant's claim is founded on Section 53-A, it goes