- (1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.9.2001 rendered by the District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No.113/97.
(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff" for convenience sake) filed a suit for possession. According to her, land measuring 231.15 square meters marked by letters A B C D E F G H I shown in red colour in the site plan comprised in Khewat No. 200, Khatauni Nos. 335 and 336, Khasra Nos. 1070 to 1073 as per Khatauni settlement for the year 1990-91 situated in village Dev Nagar, Gagret, Tehsil Amb, District Una was owned by her and defendants have no right or title over the same. She came to know in the month of April, 1993 that the defendants have encroached upon the suit land. The defendants have raised a boundary wall and shed with iron sheets. The boundary wall has been raised on the portion marked by letters A B G H and have also constructed shed with iron sheets and the portion shown by letters M K J L of the shed comes in the suit land and rest of the shed was in adjoining land of the defendants. Some pucca structure has been raised over Khasra No. 1072. The defendants were asked number of times to remove the boundary wall, but to no avail.
(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants. According to them, the Punjab State Electricity Board had acquired land measuring 45 kanals for the construction of 33 K.V. Sub-Station at Gagret vide award No. 1/1964 decided on 17.11.1964 and vide award No. 438 decided on 25.4.1963. The compensation was paid and the possession was also taken. 33 K.V. Sub-Station was constructed. The plaintiffs have never claimed anything over the suit land. The defendants were successors of Punjab State Electricity Board by virtue of re-organization of State Act, 1966. They were coming in possession of the suit property. The defendants in the year 1972 had installed dehydration plant by spending huge amount on labour. The possession of the defendants was open, hostile, continuous and without interruption to the knowledge of the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff and general public. It has ripened into ownership by way of adverse possession. The plaintiff has no right or title over the suit land. According to them, consolidation staff has wrongly and illegally carried out entries in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and thereafter in favour of the plaintiff. The possession of the defendants was verified during the settlement.;