JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. Aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Shimla, Camp at Rohru, on 21.03.2015, whereby the application for making reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the ‘Act’) came to be dismissed, the appellant has filed the instant appeal. 2. Brief facts are that award bearing No.579 dated 31.05.2006 came to be passed by the Collector for the acquisition of land for the construction of drift to Chirgaon Majhagaon Project in Village Peja Chirgaon,District Shimla. However, the payment of amount of compensation was with-held till the title of the acquired land was cleared. The appellant claimed himself to be the owner of Khasra No.1475/1 and in possession of Khasra Nos.1468/1 and 1471/1. As regards Khasra No.1471/1, the appellant claimed to have purchased the same. However, as regards Khasra No.1468/1, it was claimed that this Khasra Number is recorded under the ownership of respondents, but has remained in exclusive possession of the appellant as per revenue records and the possession of the appellant is also recorded in the order dated 24.02.1987 passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. The said Khasra Number was sold by the predecessor of the respondents to the appellant through oral sale, but it could not be reflected in the revenue records due to inadvertence. It was further contended that even otherwise the appellant has remained in peaceful and un-interrupted possession after the oral sale which ripened into ownership by way of adverse possession and, therefore, he was entitled to the entire compensation of the aforesaid Khasra Number i.e. Khasra No.1468/1. 3. The respondents contested the application on the ground of maintainability. It was pleaded that they were in possession of the land and the present application was rather time barred. The appellant taking undue advantage of the wrong revenue entries was un-necessarily trying to lay claim over the land in question and further that no order was passed by the Assistant Collector on 24.02.1987, as alleged. 4. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the reference Court on 18.03.2009 framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the entire compensation of the acquired land? OPP. 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged? OPR. 3. Whether the petition is time barred? OPR. 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR. 5. Relief.” 5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the entire compensation of the acquired land? OPP. 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged? OPR. 3. Whether the petition is time barred? OPR. 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR. 5. Relief.” 5. After recording evidence and evaluating the same, the reference petition came to be rejected, constraining the appellant to file the instant appeal. 6. It is vehemently argued by Shri Ajay Kumar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate, for the appellant that the findings recorded by the learned reference Court are perverse and, therefore, liable to be set aside. Whereas, Shri Virender Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 6, would contend that since the claim raised by the appellant was apparently false, therefore, the same has rightly been rejected by the learned reference Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 8. At the outset, it may be observed that the specific plea of the appellant in the reference petition filed under Section 30 of the Act was to the effect that it was by virtue of oral sale that he had become owner of the suit land. However, while appearing as a witness, he stated on oath that he is coming in possession of Khasra No. 1468/1 since 1985 and said Khasra Number was purchased by him from Chatter Singh through written agreement Mark X. The land was also sold to him by Ram Dass vide written agreement Mark Y and thus the evidence so led by the appellant is at complete variance with the pleadings and by now it is well settled principle of law that the evidence which is beyond the pleadings would not be admissible nor can any evidence be permitted to be adduced which is at variance with the pleadings. (Refer : M. Chinnasamy versus K.C. Palanisamy and others (2004) 6 SCC 341 ). 9. Apart from the above, it would be noticed that the appellant claimed himself to be the owner of the land by way of adverse possession. The plea of adverse possession is contained in the following terms :- “…..Even otherwise the applicant/claimant remained in continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of Kh. 9. Apart from the above, it would be noticed that the appellant claimed himself to be the owner of the land by way of adverse possession. The plea of adverse possession is contained in the following terms :- “…..Even otherwise the applicant/claimant remained in continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of Kh. No.1468/1 after the said oral sale in clear denial of the title of the said respondents or their predecessor in interest exhibiting hostile title to the said land and as such he has acquired the title to the said land by adverse possession in case the said oral sale is held to be void. Thus the applicant/claimant is entitled to the entire compensation of the acquired land.” 10. From the above, it is abundantly clear that the plea of adverse possession as raised by the appellant is very stereotype wherein he claimed that the land in question is in his open, peaceful, continuous and exclusive possession and no exact date of such possession has been set out in the pleadings. As per settled law, mere long possession is not enough to prove the plea of adverse possession and it does not result in conversion of peaceful possession into adverse possession. 11. The issue, in question, has been considered in detail by a Learned Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.306 of 2016 titled Satpal Vs. State of H.P decided on 8.8.2016, wherein it was observed as under :- “22. Moreover, the plea of adverse possession as raised by the petitioner is absolutely vague as the petitioner has not cared to mention the date from which his possession in fact became adverse. This question assumes importance as the petitioner initially had set up a lawful title in himself. 23. In Kamla and others vs. Baldev Singh and others 2008(1) Shim. LC 215, this court has held as under :- “……..Moreover, in case defendant or his father were in possession of the suit land as owner and the possession was never taken by the plaintiffs in pursuance of the decree, they can be said to be in possession as owner, but they cannot be treated to be in adverse possession of the suit land in any manner. The learned trial Court has not given its findings that the defendant or his father continued to be owner of the suit land even after passing of the decree since the decree was never executed, but has given the findings in the alternative that the defendant has become owner by way of adverse possession. This plea was taken by the defendant in the alternative but he never pleaded as to from which date his permissive possession as owner became adverse to the true owners i.e. plaintiffs and what overt act was done by him to show his hostile title to the suit land. There were no allegations as to when the possession became adverse, in which year or month or in what manner and the simple general allegation made by the defendant in the alternative were accepted by the trial Court without looking into the question that the original possession of the defendant over the suit land or that of his father was permissive being an owner and it never became adverse as against the true owner and if it became adverse in what manner and from which date, month or year. The permissive possession as owner does not itself become adverse as against the true owner until and unless some overt act is done by the defendant to show his hostile title towards the true owner which pleadings were very much lacking in the written statement and as such, the defendant was never proved to be in adverse possession of the suit land as owner. Those findings were rightly reversed by the learned first Appellate Court and the learned first Appellate Court had rightly observed that there was complete lack of animus on the part of the defendant to hold the suit land adversely to the plaintiffs. It was also observed that it has also not been shown as to what time possession of the defendant became hostile to that of the plaintiffs which had ripened into ownership. To my mind, there was nothing for the trial Court to conclude that the defendant has become owner by way of adverse possession in the absence of specific pleadings or proof and, therefore, the learned first appellate Court had come to a right conclusion in reversing the findings under Issue No. 1 in regard to the plea of adverse possession. To my mind, there was nothing for the trial Court to conclude that the defendant has become owner by way of adverse possession in the absence of specific pleadings or proof and, therefore, the learned first appellate Court had come to a right conclusion in reversing the findings under Issue No. 1 in regard to the plea of adverse possession. Once the defendant had failed to prove adverse possession over the suit land, the only conclusion that can be drawn is the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief of possession and it was rightly given by the first appellate Court.” 24. This court in Brij Mohan Sood vs. Parshotam Singh and others 2014(1) Him. L.R. 556, has held as follows :- “11. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. It is well settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is “ nec vi, nec clam, nec precario” i.e. 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. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession has to 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 is continued; and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. It has to be remembered that the person pleading adverse possession has no equity in his favour since he is trying to defeat the right of the true owner, therefore, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession (Refer Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma vs. Raj Kumari Sharma (Smt.) and others (1996) 8 SCC 128 ). 12. Having observed so, it is clear from the pleadings of the defendant that he has “11. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. Mahesh Chand Sharma vs. Raj Kumari Sharma (Smt.) and others (1996) 8 SCC 128 ). 12. Having observed so, it is clear from the pleadings of the defendant that he has “11. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. It is well settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is “ nec vi, nec clam, nec precario” i.e. 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. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession has to 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 is continued; and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. It has to be remembered that the person pleading adverse possession has no equifailed to plead the essential ingredients of adverse possession. In absence of the essential ingredients of adverse possession, no amount of evidence can be looked into by this Court. Even otherwise, the defendant has set-up a title in himself and has not acknowledged or attorned the plaintiffs to be the owners. Apart from preliminary objection No.1 (supra), in paragraph-3 of the preliminary objection, the defendant has made the following averments: “The plaintiffs are not the owners of the land rather the defendants are its owners and the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the suit.” Throughout in the written statement, the defendants have claimed themselves to be the owners of the suit property and thus the plea of adverse possession is not available to them.” 25. This court further in Deepak Parkash vs. Sunil Kumar 2014(1) Him. L.R. 654 has emphasized on the requirement of law of pleading the exact date from which the possession became adverse, in the following terms : “14. It appears that the learned lower Appellate Court completely ignored the pleadings of the parties or else the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court on the basis of such pleadings would not have been disturbed much less reversed. It appears that the learned lower Appellate Court completely ignored the pleadings of the parties or else the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court on the basis of such pleadings would not have been disturbed much less reversed. A perusal of the written statement would show that pleadings with regard to adverse possession were not only deficient but in fact did not meet the requirement of law. The defendant even failed to specify the definite date on which his possession became adverse. 16. Faced with such situation, learned counsel for the respondent/ defendant would contend that he had led sufficient evidence to prove his plea of adverse possession. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent/defendant. 17. It is settled law that no amount of evidence beyond pleadings can be looked into. It is further well settled principle of law that the evidence adduced beyond the pleading would not be admissible nor can any evidence be permitted to be adduced which is at variance with the pleadings. The Court at the later stage of the trial as also the Appellate Court having regard to the rule of pleading would be entitled to reject the evidence wherefor there does not exist any pleading.” 26. In Om Parkash & ors. vs. Gian Chand & ors. 2014(2) Him.L.R. 1071 one of us (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J) dealt in detail with the question of adverse possession particularly when the defendant therein had not spelt out any specific date from which his possession became adverse and it was observed as follows:- “11. Therefore, the moot question is as to whether the pleadings set out by the defendants can meet the requirement of law or not. This question assumes importance, because admittedly, the defendants have not spelt out any specific date from which their possession became adverse.” 12. What is adverse possession has been dealt with by a learned Division Bench in Satpal’s case supra in Para No.10 of the judgment and the same reads thus:- “10. Now, adverting to the question of adverse possession, it is well recognized proposition in law that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. Now, adverting to the question of adverse possession, it is well recognized proposition in law that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really means the hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession proved must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owner’s title must be peaceful, open and continuous. It is equally settled that a person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour and since such a person is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish necessary facts to establish his adverse possession. In the eyes of law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Even non-use of the property by the owner for a long time won’t affect his title.” 13. Not only this, it would be further noticed that the appellant has not even acknowledged either the official respondents or the private respondents or some other person to be the actual owners of the land and has set up a title in himself. 14. In P. Periasami vs. P. Periathambi (1995) 6 SCC 523 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that : "Whenever the plea of adverse possession is projected, inherent in the plea is that someone else was the owner of the property." 15. In Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Government of India and others (2004) 10 SCC 779 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that one who pleads adverse possession should be very clear about the origin of title over the property. He must specifically plead it. 16. Over the years there has been a new paradigm to Limitation Act as the same has undergone a change. The burden of proof is now on the person who alleges his adverse possession, particularly once a party has proved its title. He must specifically plead it. 16. Over the years there has been a new paradigm to Limitation Act as the same has undergone a change. The burden of proof is now on the person who alleges his adverse possession, particularly once a party has proved its title. The starting point of limitation commences not from the date when the right of ownership arises in favour of the original owner but from the date a party claims his possession to have become adverse. 17. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, it was incumbent upon the appellant to have not only stated the specific date on which his possession came hostile but have acknowledged and attorned to the title of the ownership of the respondents and thereafter, led foundation for the plea of adverse possession. Having failed to do so, I am afraid that the plea of the adverse possession raised by the appellant was not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. 18. Lastly, it was not open to the appellant to have claimed himself to be in lawful owner of the land and at the same time claimed to be in adverse possession thereof. The pleas based on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced. Unless the person possessing the property has the requisite animus to possess the property hostile to the title of the true owner, the period for prescription will not commence. (Vide P. Periasami v. P. Periathambi (1995) 6 SCC 523 , Md. Mohammad Ali v. Jagadish Kalita (2004) 1 SCC 271 and P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma (2007) 6 SCC 59 .). 19. Even if it is to be assumed, though not conceded that the appellant had purchased the property by entering into an agreement of sale as alleged, even then, it is more than settled that agreement to sell by itself does not confer any title upon a party and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any compensation whatsoever. 20. The order passed by the learned reference Court does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity much less any perversity and, therefore, calls for no interference. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 20. The order passed by the learned reference Court does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity much less any perversity and, therefore, calls for no interference. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.