IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: RSA.No. 8 of 2008. Date of Decision :9th January, 2008. Ranjit Singh. …Appellant. Versus: State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for judgment?1 For the appellant: Mr.G.D.Verma, Sr.Advocate with Mr.B.C.Verma, Advocate. . For Respondent. Sanjay Karol, J.(Oral). The present appeal arises out of the concurrent finding of fact. The appellant filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction on the premise that he has become the owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession and consequently he was not liable to be dispossessed from the suit premises. The appellant’s suit was dismissed on merit in terms of judgment and decree dated 26th April, 2007 passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Division) Kinnaur in Civil Suit No.18-1 of 2005. It was held that the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 plaintiff had not become owner of the suit land by adverse possession and was liable to be evicted in accordance with the law. The appellant assailed the same and in terms of the impugned judgment and decree dated 3rd December, 2007 passed by District Judge, Kinnaur in Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2007, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal upholding the finding returned by the trial Court and holding that the appellant’s possession was not hostile to that of the defendant as the appellant had applied for regularization of his encroachment in accordance with the policy framed by the State Government. It is a matter of record that the State Government had framed a policy for regularization of un-authorized/illegal encroachments in the State. It has also been proved in terms of report Ext.DW-1/A and Ext.DW-2/A that the appellant had constructed a residential house on the suit premises and had applied for the regularization of the same in accordance with the policy framed by the State. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the said application is still pending and the State Government has not taken any decision on the same. In view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below to the effect that the appellant’s possession in the suit premises is neither adverse nor has the appellant perfected his title with regard to the suit premises, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgments passed by the courts below. 3 The application filed by the appellant pending before the appropriate authority is directed to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the scheme and till disposal of the same, the appellant shall not be dispossessed, except in accordance with the provisions of law. It shall be open for the parties to assail the orders so passed by the authorities. In view of the aforesaid observation, the appeal is dismissed In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, all the miscellaneous applications are also dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. January 9, 2008(R)