ORDER : 1. Heard the counsel for the appellants. 2. The appellants are original plaintiffs. 3. The appellants have lost the suit before both the courts below. 4. The suit being Title Suit No.47 of 2006 has been instituted by the plaintiffs for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land. 5. It appears that present suit is for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land on the basis of adverse possession. 6. The plaintiffs have pleaded that they are in possession over the suit land since 1968 and further Ext.1, which is a record of right, which has been prepared in the year 1969 wherein it has been mentioned that the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit land since 1967. 7. The State Government has neither appeared nor filed written statement before the court below. 8. The trial court has framed issues on its own regarding implication of adverse possession as claimed by the plaintiffs. The finding has been recorded by the trial court in para-6 of the judgment, which is quoted herein below:- “6. Admitted facts of this case is that in the present record of rights (Ext.1) the suit property stand recorded in the name of State of Bihar, now Jharkhand and the possession of the plaintiff is shown in the remark column (as illegal possess) on plot no.130 from the year 1967. As per the pleadings of the plaintiff, he has not pleaded derivative title over the suit property, rather his claim is based on reclamation of land attached to the suit property and it has been stated that on 14.01.1965, the plaintiff cleared the bushes and shrubs on the said land and developed it for growing crops and vegetable and the process of conversion of land took about two years to make it fit for cultivation.” 9. On the basis of above finding, suit has been dismissed by the trial court. 10. Being aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed Title Appeal No.01 of 2015. The appellate court has approved the finding recorded by the trial court and accordingly, decree of dismissal has been confirmed. 11. Thus, there is concurrent finding by both the courts below, rejecting the plea of adverse possession of the plaintiffs. 12. 10. Being aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed Title Appeal No.01 of 2015. The appellate court has approved the finding recorded by the trial court and accordingly, decree of dismissal has been confirmed. 11. Thus, there is concurrent finding by both the courts below, rejecting the plea of adverse possession of the plaintiffs. 12. Counsel for the State has appeared and submitted that the suit is otherwise also not maintainable as the plaintiffs have failed to prove right, title and interest over the suit land on the basis of adverse possession, which can be a defence and cannot be a cause of action for filing the suit. 13. Counsel for the State has placed reliance upon the judgment reported in the case of R. Hanumaiah & Anr. v. Secretary to Govt. of Karnataka, Revenue Department & ors. (2010)5 SCC 203 , paras-19 to 23, which are quoted hereinbelow: “19. Suits for declaration of title against the Government, though similar to suits for declaration of title against private individuals differ significantly in some aspects. The first difference is in regard to the presumption available in favour of the Government. All lands which are not the property of any person or which are not vested in a local authority, belong to the Government. All unoccupied lands are the property of the Government, unless any person can establish his right or title to any such land. This presumption available to the Government, is not available to any person or individual. The second difference is in regard to the period for which title and/or possession has to be established by a person suing for declaration of title. Establishing title/possession for a period exceeding twelve years may be adequate to establish title in a declaratory suit against any individual. On the other hand, title/possession for a period exceeding thirty years will have to be established to succeed in a declaratory suit for title against the Government. This follows from Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a longer period of thirty years as limitation in regard to suits by the Government as against the period of 12 years for suits by private individuals. The reason is obvious. Government properties are spread over the entire State and it is not always possible for the Government to protect or safeguard its properties from encroachments. The reason is obvious. Government properties are spread over the entire State and it is not always possible for the Government to protect or safeguard its properties from encroachments. Many a time, its own officers who are expected to protect its properties and maintain proper records, either due to negligence or collusion, create entries in records to help private parties, to lay claim of ownership or possession against the Government. Any loss of government property is ultimately the loss to the community. Courts owe a duty to be vigilant to ensure that public property is not converted into private property by unscrupulous elements. 20. Many civil courts deal with suits for declaration of title and injunction against the Government, in a casual manner, ignoring or overlooking the special features relating to government properties. Instances of such suits against the Government being routinely decreed, either ex parte or for want of proper contest, merely acting upon the oral assertions of plaintiffs or stray revenue entries are common. Whether the Government contests the suit or not, before a suit for declaration of title against a Government is decreed, the plaintiff should establish, either his title by producing the title deeds which satisfactorily trace title for a minimum period of thirty years prior to the date of the suit (except where title is claimed with reference to a grant or transfer by the Government or a statutory development authority), or by establishing adverse possession for a period of more than thirty years. In such suits, courts cannot, ignoring the presumptions available in favour of the Government, grant declaratory or injunctive decrees against the Government by relying upon one of the principles underlying pleadings that plaint averments which are not denied or traversed are deemed to have been accepted or admitted. 21. A court should necessarily seek an answer to the following question, before it grants a decree declaring title against the Government: whether the plaintiff has produced title deeds tracing the title for a period of more than thirty years; or whether the plaintiff has established his adverse possession to the knowledge of the Government for a period of more than thirty years, so as to convert his possession into title. Incidental to that question, the court should also find out whether the plaintiff is recorded to be the owner or holder or occupant of the property in the revenue records or municipal records, for more than thirty years, and what is the nature of possession claimed by the plaintiff, if he is in possession-authorised or unauthorised; permissive; casual and occasional; furtive and clandestine; open, continuous and hostile; deemed or implied (following a title). 22. Mere temporary use or occupation without the animus to claim ownership or mere use at sufferance will not be sufficient to create any right adverse to the Government. In order to oust or defeat the title of the Government, a claimant has to establish a clear title which is superior to or better than the title of the Government or establish perfection of title by adverse possession for a period of more than thirty years with the knowledge of the Government. To claim adverse possession, the possession of the claimant must be actual, open and visible, hostile to the owner (and therefore necessarily with the knowledge of the owner) and continued during the entire period necessary to create a bar under the law of limitation. In short, it should be adequate in continuity, publicity and in extent. Mere vague or doubtful assertions that the claimant has been in adverse possession will not be sufficient. Unexplained stray or sporadic entries for a year or for a few years will not be sufficient and should be ignored. 23. As noticed above, many a time it is possible for a private citizen to get his name entered as the occupant of government land, with the help of collusive government servants. Only entries based on appropriate documents like grants, title deeds, etc. or based upon actual verification of physical possession by an authority authorised to recognise such possession and make appropriate entries can be used against the Government. By its very nature, a claim based on adverse possession requires clear and categorical pleadings and evidence, much more so, if it is against the Government. Be that as it may.” 14. For this purpose, counsel for State has further relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another, (2014)1 SCC 669 , para-8, which is quoted hereinbelow: “8. Be that as it may.” 14. For this purpose, counsel for State has further relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another, (2014)1 SCC 669 , para-8, which is quoted hereinbelow: “8. There cannot be any quarrel to this extent that 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 are filed against the appellant and the appellant is arrayed as defendant that it can use this adverse possession as a shield/defence.” 15. Be that as it may, law is clear that if any proceeding is brought against the plaintiffs for eviction from the suit land, then certainly present plaintiffs can take plea of adverse possession as a defence against the State. 16. From the above discussion, it is evident that there is no substantial question of law involved in the present second appeal. Accordingly, the same is hereby, dismissed.