RSA No.2064 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2064 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:11.10.2010. Tejinder Pal ...Appellant Versus The Collector, Karnal and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’B LE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby his suit for declaration that he has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession, has been dismissed. The case set up by the plaintiff is that his possession is recorded in the revenue record as “billa lagan bewajah najayaz kast” and since his possession has been continuous, open and hostile, therefore, it has perfected into ownership by way of adverse possession. On the other hand, the defendants had relied upon an order dated 12.12.2005 (Ex.D2) passed by the Collector, Karnal by which possession of the plaintiff over the suit property was found to be illegal and he was ordered to be evicted after a fine of `10,000/- per acre was imposed upon him and his appeal was dismissed vide order dated RSA No.2064 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ****** 21.12.2006 which has become final between the parties. It was also held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his open, hostile and continuous possession over the suit property for 12 years in order to mature into ownership. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the findings recorded by the Courts below are patently illegal as the plaintiff is in possession through his predecessor-in-interest for a period of more than 12 years and in view of the entry in the revenue record that the possession of his predecessor-in-interest was also “billa lagan bewajah najayaz kast”, his adverse possession has matured into ownership by efflux of time. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the available record. It is now well settled by this Court that the plea of adverse possession is only a plea of defence and cannot be raised before the Civil Court for the purpose of seeking declaration of a right. Moreover, adverse possession is not recognized as a mode of transfer of property as held in Zile Singh and others Vs. Bhim Singh and others, 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 97. . In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. October 11, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE