ORDER : 1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 13th January, 1998 passed by the Board of Revenue. 2. Learned counsel submits that a suit was filed to claim rights in the land in dispute. It was based on possession for more than 30 years. The suit was decreed by the Assistant Collector vide its order dated 14th December, 1992. The respondents preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was dismissed vide the order dated 28th January, 1995. A further appeal by the respondents before the Board of Revenue remained successful. It was allowed vide order dated 09th January, 1997 and 13th January, 1998. 3. The Revenue Appellate Authority has recorded finding about petitioner’s possession on the land in dispute, that too, for more than 30 years. The Board of Revenue ignored the aforesaid while holding that finding about possession is only of 12 years. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue deserves to be set aside. It is moreso when, a certificate has been given by the Administrator showing possession of the petitioner and, otherwise, the documents were available to show peaceful possession of the petitioner for more than 30 years. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record. 5. The perusal of the order passed by the ADM shows it to be based on possession of the petitioner for more than 12 years, whereas, it need to be for more than 30 years in case land belongs to the government or its authority. 6. The aforesaid is only one part. The Revenue Appellate Authority recorded finding about possession of more than 30 years but failed to consider that mere possession for whatever length of time did not result in adverse possession. To claim it, it must be established by cogent and convincing evidence to show hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of real owner. The burden of proof is on the party claiming it but the petitioner failed to discharge its obligation other than to prove the possession. 7. The issue aforesaid was decided by the Apex court in the case of Thakur Kishan Singh(dead) vs. Arvind Kumar, (1994) 6 SCC 591 . The burden of proof is on the party claiming it but the petitioner failed to discharge its obligation other than to prove the possession. 7. The issue aforesaid was decided by the Apex court in the case of Thakur Kishan Singh(dead) vs. Arvind Kumar, (1994) 6 SCC 591 . The relevant para of the said judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference : 5."As regards adverse possession, it was not disputed even by the trial court that the appellant entered into possession over the land in dispute under a licence from the respondent for purposes of brick-kiln. The possession thus initially being permissive, the burden was heavy on the appellant to establish that it became adverse. A possession of a co-owner or of a licencee or of an agent or a permissive possession to become adverse must be established by cogent and convincing evidence to show hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of real owner. Mere possession for howsoever length of time does not result in converting the permissible possession into adverse possession. Apart from it, the Appellate Court has gone into detail and after considering the evidence on record found it as a fact that the possession of the appellant was not adverse. The learned Counsel, despite strenuous argument, could not demolish the finding of adverse possession. Attempt was made to rely on the evidence led on behalf of the parties and the evidence of the Commissioner who prepared the map. We are afraid that such an exercise is not permissible even in second appeal, what to say of the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Further, we do not find that the appellant has suffered any injustice which requires to be remedied by this Court." 8. In the case of Karnataka Board of wakf vs. Govt. of India, 2004 (10) SCC 779 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under : "11. In the eye of law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of true owner. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of true owner. It is a well- settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is 'nec vi, nec clam, nec precario', that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. (See : S M Karim v. Bibi Sakinal [1964]6 SCR 780, Parsinni v. Sukhi (1993) 4 SCC 375 and D N Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka AIR 1997 SC 2930 ). Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus posited to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. (Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Raj Kumari Sharma)." 9. The issue of adverse possession has been considered by the Board of Revenue and after detailed discussion on the facts, reversed the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the ADM. I do not find any illegality therein, rather, it is required to be added that the suit cannot be maintained to make a claim based on adverse possession. The issue of adverse possession has been considered by the Board of Revenue and after detailed discussion on the facts, reversed the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the ADM. I do not find any illegality therein, rather, it is required to be added that the suit cannot be maintained to make a claim based on adverse possession. The plea of adverse possession is considered to be a defence, however, ignoring the aforesaid also, the order was passed by the Additional Collector and the Revenue Appellate Authority. The view aforesaid is supported by the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Prem Nath Wadhwana vs. Inder Rai Wadhwana. The Court held that the plea of adverse possession cannot be relied for a declaration that plaintiff is the owner of the property. It can only be relied as a defense for protection of right in a suit for recovery of possession. Relevant para of the judgment in the case of Prem Nath Wadhwana (supra) is quoted hereunder for ready reference : 9."I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff has become absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of adverse possession as the plea of adverse possession can be raised in defense in a suit for recovery of possession but the relief for declaration that the plaintiff has become absolute owner, cannot be granted on the basis of adverse possession." 10. The view aforesaid is further supported by a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Sirthala, 2014 (1) SCC 669 , where the hon'ble Apex Court held that merely having adverse possession does not entitle the plaintiff to claim ownership over the property. It merely confers him with a right to defend himself. The plea of adverse possession can be taken as a measure of defense and can only be used as a shield and not as a sword. Relevant para of the said judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference : 8. "There cannot be any quarrel to this extent the judgments of the courts below are correct and without any blemish. The plea of adverse possession can be taken as a measure of defense and can only be used as a shield and not as a sword. Relevant para of the said judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference : 8. "There cannot be any quarrel to this extent the judgments of the courts below are correct and without any blemish. Even if the Plaintiff is found to be in adverse possession, it cannot seek a declaration to the effect that such adverse possession has matured into ownership. Only if proceedings filed against the Appellant and Appellant is arrayed as Defendant that it can use this adverse possession as a shield/defence." 11. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to cause interference in the order passed by the Board of Revenue. It is necessary to further add that even as per the record, the land was recorded in the name of Gram Panchayat and another land in the name of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. The land in dispute was said to be neighbouring land to it, though, finding in that regard has also been interfered by the Board of Revenue. 12. Taking into consideration the detailed and proper consideration of the issue by the Board of Revenue, the present writ petition is dismissed.