JUDGMENT P.K.PaIli, J.: This second appeal has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh. The machinery was set in motion by the Assistant Collector, Nalagarh on the report having been received from the Patwart that respondent Khazana Ram had encroached upon the land measuring 13 Biswas comprising Khasra No. 84 min. Khata /Khatauni No.37/60. Notice under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act was issued to him, in reply he had made out a case that he had not encroached upon the land, rat her he has become owner by way of adverse possession. The Assistant Collector vide impugned order held that the respondent has been able to prove himself to have become owner by way of adverse possession. Appeal filed by the State stands dismissed and this is how this second appeal has been filed. 2. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and on careful examination of the impugned judgment and the record. I find that the appeal calls for no interference by this Court. 3. Respondent claimed adverse possession since 1958 and a further case has been made out that his possession eversince is continuous, un-interrupted, hostile and to the knowledge of the true owner. 4. On perusal of the record I find that the possession of the respondent is reflected for the first time in the Jamabandi of the year 1959-60 Ext. DW- 1/5. As presumption of correctness is attached to this document, the presumption would take us back to four years earlier. It would, thus, mean that the respondents possession over the suit land would relate back to the year 1955-56. The next following Jamabandi placed on record is Ex. DW- 1/B, which is of the year 1963-64. Jamabandi of the year 1969-70 is Ex. DW- 1/C and likewise Jamabandi of the year 1974-75 is Ex. DW-l/D. Jamabandi of the year 1979-80 is Ex. DW-l/E and Jamabandi of the year 1984-85 is Ex. DW-1/F. Jamabandi of the year 1988-89 which is from Missal Hakiyat is Ex. DW-l/G.. In the Jamabandi, Ex. DW-l/H, of the year 1989-90 the possession of Khazana Ram is recorded without payment of any rent. In the rent column it is recorded as BILA LAGAN BAWAZA KABZA". In the other Jamabandis as noticed above the entry in the rent column is identically the same. DW-l/G.. In the Jamabandi, Ex. DW-l/H, of the year 1989-90 the possession of Khazana Ram is recorded without payment of any rent. In the rent column it is recorded as BILA LAGAN BAWAZA KABZA". In the other Jamabandis as noticed above the entry in the rent column is identically the same. In the Jamabandi of the year 1974-75, in column No.13 it is recorded that the ownership has been changed from Gram Panchayat in favour of the State of Himachal Pradesh. 5. It would, thus appear that till 1974-75 is was Gram Panchayat which was recorded as owner and mutation was effected in favour of State of Himachal Pradesh by operation of law. Be that as it may. 6. Coming to the first Jamabandi in favour of the respondent of the year 1959- 60 Ex. DW i/5 it is the Nagar Panchayat that is recorded as owner and the respondent is recorded in the possessory column as GAIR MAROOSI". If this word has appeared in isolation some meaning could be given to it. Strangely enough in column No.7 pertaining to Lagan it is recorded "BILA LAGAN BAWAZA NAZAIJ KABZA". It would, thus, follow that the respondent has been in possession of the suit land un-authorisedly and without payment of any rent. Ex. PW-l/A is the report made by the revenue Patwari suggesting appropriate action as the possession of respondent Khazana Ram was found to be illegal. Patwari has also appeared as PW-1 in this case. In cross-examination he has made a funny statement. It has been said by him that the un-authorised possession was found at the time of check up but he did not record it in the rapat rozanamcha. Towards the end of his statement it has been categorically said by him that the possession of the respondent over the suit land since 1959-60 is un-authorised. 7. No other evidence was necessary to hold that respondent has ripened his un- authorised possession into one of title. Appeal does not call for any interference by this Court and, is consequently, ordered to be dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.