JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.4.2005 rendered by the Additional District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 34/S- 13 of 05/04. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the Halqua Patwari, Mashobra prepared a file regarding encroachment by the appellant in respect of one biswa of land by constructing a residential Dhara in khata Khatauni No.18/26 min, Khasra No.15/1. Ejectment proceedings were initiated against the appellant under section 163 (1) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954. Warrant of ejectment was issued by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade (Rural) on 17.1.1994. Appellant challenged order dated 17.1.1994 by filing CWP No. 77 of 1995. The writ petition was disposed of with the direction that appellant may prefer an appeal. It is in these circumstances an appeal was filed before the District Judge, Shimla. He allowed the appeal vide order dated 20.5.1996 and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collect 1st Grade (Rural), Shimla-1. Issues were framed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade (Rural), Shimla and parties were permitted to lead evidence vide order dated 7.4.2001. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade (Rural) ordered the eviction of appellant vide order dated 4.7.2001 in case No. 34/93-94. A categorical finding was recorded that the appellant has encroached upon the Government land and the plea of adverse possession was disallowed. The appellant filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Shimla. He dismissed the same on 26.4.2005. Hence, the present appeal. It was admitted on 2.9.2005 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the findings of the learned trial court as affirmed by the learned first appellate court are dehors the evidence on record” 3. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, on the basis of the substantial question of law, has vehemently argued that the courts below have not correctly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence. He has also contended that his client has acquired title by way of adverse possession. 4. Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General has supported the judgment and decree passed by the court below. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 6. PW-1 Akshay Sood has deposed that the appellant has constructed a Dhara in the year 1989-90. Appellant’s wife was working as Part Time Sweeper in the HIPA. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 6. PW-1 Akshay Sood has deposed that the appellant has constructed a Dhara in the year 1989-90. Appellant’s wife was working as Part Time Sweeper in the HIPA. He has denied the suggestion that construction was raised in the year 1960. Notice was issued to the appellant in the year 1989-90. 7. PW-2 Mast Ram has supported the version of PW-1 Akshay Sood. He knew the family members of appellant since 1974. The Dhara was raised in the year 1985-86. He has denied the suggestion that construction was raised in the year 1967. 8. Smt. Harkali has deposed that her husband has constructed a Dhara in the year 1964-65. Earlier the Fair Lawn was Rest House of PWD. She was engaged as Sweeper. No objection was raised when the Dhara was built up. No notice was served upon them before 1995. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that she was given accommodation by the HIPA. She has not vacated the same. 9. Swami Ram has deposed that he has seen the Dhara in existence since 1975-76. Similarly, Chander Pal has deposed that he has seen the Dhara in existence since 1968-69. Shree Ram has deposed that his mother was engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1963-64. Dhara was constructed by his father in the year 1964-65. He did not know on which Khasra number the Dhara was raised. 10. Appellant has not led cogent evidence to establish the plea of adverse possession. Swami Ram has not seen the Dhara before 1975. PW-1 Akshay Sood and PW-2 Mast Ram have categorically denied the suggestion that Dhara was constructed in the year 1960. According to PW-1 Akshay Sood, Dhara was constructed on 0-5 biswas of land in the year 1989-90. PW-2 Mast Ram has also deposed that the Dhara was constructed after 1985-86. Necessary ingredients of adverse possession are lacking in this case. There is no positive evidence, as discussed hereinabove, to prove that appellant’s possession was open and hostile to the knowledge of the true owner, i.e. State of Himachal Pradesh. 11. The Patwari, in his report, dated 24.7.1993 has specifically stated that respondent has encroached upon the Government land. The tatima was also checked on the spot by the Field Kanungo. His statement was also recorded in the year 1989-90. 11. The Patwari, in his report, dated 24.7.1993 has specifically stated that respondent has encroached upon the Government land. The tatima was also checked on the spot by the Field Kanungo. His statement was also recorded in the year 1989-90. According to Jamabandi for the year 1991-92, the whole of Khasra No.15 is in the ownership of H.P. Government and the possession is of HIPA. Presumption of truth is attached to the Jamabandi. No evidence has been led to rebut the same. Rather, appellant has not denied the ownership of the State of H.P. His false plea of adverse possession has rightly been disallowed by the courts below. Moreover, since the mother of the appellant has been allotted accommodation, there was no occasion for him to construct a Dhara. 12. The Appellate Court has correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties and there is no need to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the appellate court below. 13. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 14. In view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.