JUDGMENT : The state of Himachal Pradesh/respondent herein, initiated ejectment proceedings, under Section 163 of Land Revenue Act against one Ram Rattan/appellant herein, alleging therein that the afore Ram Rattan had made encroachment over government land, to the extent of 6 biswa of land comprised in khata/khatauni 10 min/15 khasra No. 42 situated in village Sona Khurad, Tehsil Kandaghat (for short “suit land”), and, that hence the afore Ram Rattan be evicted. However, during the pendency of the afore proceedings, before the Revenue Officer concerned, Ram Rattan claimed acquisition of title over the suit land, on the basis of adverse possession. He also claimed that reflections in the apposite column of the Jamabandi appertaining to the suit land qua the State of Himachal Pradesh being owner of the suit land, rather being erroneous. The Revenue Court concerned hence converted itself into a Civil Court, and, thereupon, Ram rattan, instituted a suit before it, claiming therein, that he has acquired valid title over the suit land through adverse possession. 2. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade (functioning as Civil Court u/s 163(3) of H.P land Revenue Act) (for short A.C 1st Grade) Kandaghat District Solan, H.P, after framing the hereinafter extracted issues, on the contentious pleadings of the contesting litigants, returned findings hence adversarial to the plaintiff Ram Rattan, upon, Issue No.1. Moreover, the A.C 1st Grade proceeded to render dis-affirmative findings on issue No.2 . “1. Whether the plaintiff Shri Ram rattan etc have become owner of the land by adverse possession if so its effect….OPP 2. Whether the State of HP has the right to evict Sh. Ram Rattan etc from the suit land……..OPD” 3. In the operative portion of the verdict drawn by the A.C 1st Grade, the hereinafter extracted directions were made:- “Both issues 1 and 2 are answered in the negative. The plaintiff is not declared to have become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Also the defendant State has no right to evict the plaintiff from the suit land. Proceedings u/s 163 of HP Land Rev. Act are set-aside. The defendant is further restrained from causing any interference in the suit land either by itself or through agents or any official what so ever. Both parties are asked to bear their own cost. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. File be consigned to G.R.R. after due completion.” 4. Proceedings u/s 163 of HP Land Rev. Act are set-aside. The defendant is further restrained from causing any interference in the suit land either by itself or through agents or any official what so ever. Both parties are asked to bear their own cost. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. File be consigned to G.R.R. after due completion.” 4. The State of Himachal Pradesh being aggrieved from the afore drawn verdict, preferred there-against Case No. 11FTC/13 of 2008 before the learned Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan, District Solan, H.P. Ram Rattan also became aggrieved from the findings recorded by the A.C 1st Grade upon issue No.1 (supra), and, also hence preferred within the afore case No. 11FTC/13 of 2008, cross objections No. 15 FTC/13 of 2008. 5. Both the afore appeal, and, cross-objections became decided through a common verdict being rendered thereons by the learned first Appellate Court. 6. The learned first Appellate Court, in the operative part, of its verdict, accepted the appeal preferred before it, by the aggrieved State of Himachal Pradesh, and, also proceeded to dismiss the cross-objections reared by Ram Rattan against findings adversarial to him, as, become rendered, upon, issue No.1 by the A.C 1st Grade. 7. The appellant Ram Rattan (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff”) became aggrieved from the verdict (supra) hence recorded by the learned first Appellate Court, and, has hence instituted the instant RSA before this Court. 8. When the instant appeal came up for admission, this Court admitted it, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- “2. Whether area in question never vested in Gram Panchayat Sakori, nor in the State of HP in accordance with law and therefore, ejectment proceedings under section-163 of HP Land Revenue Act could not be initiated. 5. Whether the Respondent merely by changing entries in the revenue record cannot be held to be owner of the area in question and until and unless proceedings are held under provisions of HP village Common Land Act by the competent authority, this area cannot be held to be owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh and therefore, proceedings under Section-163 of the HP Land Revenue Act are not enforceable?” 9. A careful perusal of the evidence existing, on record discloses, that both the Courts below, did not commit, any impropriety or illegality, as may become aroused from theirs purportedly mis-appreciating evidence on record, and, of theirs purportedly appreciating evidence germane to issue No.1 (supra). 10. The reasons for making the afore conclusion, becomes derived, from the factum of the Jamabandi(s) appertaining to the suit land, and, commencing from the year 1955-1956, and, as becomes borne in Exhibit R-1, besides Jamabandi(s) appertaining to the suit land, and, relating to the years 1968-1969 hence embodied in Exhibit R-2, rather vividly and graphically containing recitals, depictive of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, holding possession of the suit land. In the classification column of the Jambandi(s) an entry of Gair Mumkin Dukan exists. The afore entries existed during the lifetime of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, in as much, as, one Sewak Ram. On the demise of afore Sewak Ram, the plaintiff alongwith Kanta, Shakuntala and Sarju, became entered in the column of possession in the Jamabandi, Jamabandi whereof is embodied in Annexure R-11. 11. The factum of the suit land, becoming vested in the ownership of the State of Himachal Pradesh, through operation of the mandate, comprised in the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974, has not come to be contested nor has come to be ousted through adduction of cogent and tangible evidence. Even if any claim, with respect to illegality of vestment of the suit land, through operation of the law (supra), in the State of Himachal Pradesh, became rested rather on any evidence of evidentiary vigor, becoming adduced before the A.C 1st Grade, thereupon, too, the afore fact was determinable, only by, the specially constituted mechanism, contemplated in the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974, obviously hence the afore plea, was neither convass-able nor was befittingly entertain-able before the A.C 1st Grade. 12. The sequel of the afore discussion, is that any challenge, to legality of the afore vestment was not permissible to be made, either before the A.C 1st Grade or before the leaned First Appellate Court. Therefore, when the afore challenge before the appropriately constituted statutory mechanism, rather remained un-recoursed by the plaintiff. 12. The sequel of the afore discussion, is that any challenge, to legality of the afore vestment was not permissible to be made, either before the A.C 1st Grade or before the leaned First Appellate Court. Therefore, when the afore challenge before the appropriately constituted statutory mechanism, rather remained un-recoursed by the plaintiff. Consequently, the validity of the apposite vestment, and, also of the corresponding thereto entries, as, occurring in the Jamabandi(s) appertaining to the suit land, cannot become tested in the instant proceedings. 13. Be that as it may, earlier to the vestment of the suit land through operation of law, in the State of Himachal Pradesh, it was recorded in the ownership of Nagar Panchayat. The afore entries were also not contestable in the proceedings drawn before the A.C 1st Grade, through recoursings being made before it. On the afore score, too, the afore entries also acquire conclusivity. 14. Since this Court has made the afore drawn conclusion with respect to un-amenability, of, any challenge being laid, to the entries borne in the apposite Jamabandi(s), as, appertaining to the suit land, wherein the suit land becomes reflected to be owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh. Therefore the apt sequel thereof, is that the possession over the suit land of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff hence as becomes pronounced in the apposite column of the apposite Jamabandi(s), and, thereafter upon his demise, hence, the name(s) of the plaintiff alongwith the afore Kanta, Shakuntala and Sarju, becoming recorded in the column of possession, also acquires an aura of solemnity, and, are connotative of mere permissive possession. 15. The effect of this Court assigning probative sanctity, to the factum of occurrence of the name(s) of persons (supra) in the apposite column of the apposite Jamabandi(s), is reiteratedly that obviously, the suit land became in the permissive possession of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, and, upon his demise the plaintiff alongwith the afore named persons, alike him obviously also hold only permissive possession of the suit land. 16. Moreover, Since during the lifetime of Sewak Ram, the latter since 1954 and uptill 1968, did not stake any claim for scoring off the relevant entries of possession, as, made in his name, vis-àvis suit land, nor when he claimed prescriptive title thereon, through efflux of time. 16. Moreover, Since during the lifetime of Sewak Ram, the latter since 1954 and uptill 1968, did not stake any claim for scoring off the relevant entries of possession, as, made in his name, vis-àvis suit land, nor when he claimed prescriptive title thereon, through efflux of time. Therefore, when the entry (supra) is prima facie connotative of his holding permissive possession of the suit land. Thereupon, when it becomes also amenable to be read, as, an entry bestowing upon him no leverage to espouse qua his holding the suit land with an animus possidendi. Therefore, want of the afore recoursings being made by Sewak Ram i.e predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, during his lifetime, the entry of possession recorded in his name, in the relevant Jamabandi, is concluded to be a sequel of his simpliciter permissive possession upon the suit land. 17. The plaintiff and the afore named persons, on demise of their predecessor-in-interest, became recorded to be in possession of the suit land. The afore entry occurred in the year 1998. Consequently since the year 1998, their purported possession, within a purported animus possidendi, commenced from 1998, and when 30 years, were to elapse therefrom, for theirs being enabled to validly propagate theirs holding the suit land with an animus possidendi. However, when the plaintiff has instituted the plaint in the year 1998. Obviously the afore period of 30 years never elapsed since 1998. Therefore, he was completely barred to stake any valid claim, rather propagating acquisition of prescriptive title over the suit land, through efflux of time. In sequel the finding(s) recorded on issue No.1 is well merited, and, do not require any interference being made by this Court. 18. Be that as it may, in the classification column, of the relevant Jamabandi, a “Gair Mumkin Dukan” is existing, upon, the suit land. The A.C 1st Grade restrained the State of Himachal Pradesh from causing interference in the suit land. However, the learned first Appellate Court, permitted the defendant/State of Himachal Pradesh, to, evict the plaintiff from the ‘dukan’ over the suit land, after theirs recoursing the procedure constituted under law. Since as afore-stated this Court, has prima-facie, though, validated the vestment through operation of law of the suit land, in the State of Himachal Pradesh. However, the learned first Appellate Court, permitted the defendant/State of Himachal Pradesh, to, evict the plaintiff from the ‘dukan’ over the suit land, after theirs recoursing the procedure constituted under law. Since as afore-stated this Court, has prima-facie, though, validated the vestment through operation of law of the suit land, in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Moreover, when the vestment (supra) through operation of law (supra) of suit property, described, as gair mumkin dukan in the revenue records, may if permissible, save it from its vestment, through the plaintiff depending, upon the apposite saving clause, through his recoursing proceedings before the statutorily contemplated authorities, in statute (supra). Moreover, when the afore endeavor, may if permissible, under law can be recoursed, only before the statutory authority contemplated in the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974, and only, if at the site of the suit land, no commercial establishment exists rather only if permissible under law, hence a dwelling house exists, and, subject to an undertaking being furnished by them, before the Collector concerned against theirs using it for commercial purpose. Thereupon subject to afore it may be recoursed. Therefore, given the observations supra, the verdict of the learned first Appellate Court ordering for eviction of the plaintiff from the suit land, through adoption of the procedure constituted under law, rather suffers from a grave legal fallacy, and, is interfered with. 19. In view of the above, the instant RSA is allowed, with a condition (supra), that only after conclusion of proceedings, to be forthwith drawn, by the plaintiff, before the statutory authority contemplated under Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974, and, upon an adversarial decision, if required under law, being recorded against the plaintiff, thereupto, the defendant may not proceed to issue warrants of possession, vis-à-vis, the suit property, for there-throughs the plaintiff becoming evicted therefrom. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.