Keeping in view the above position of law, let us see whether the petitioner-State has proved prima facie the act of land grabbing. While it is the case of the State that the land in dispute, covered by Sy.No.741, situate in Urus Village, is a Government poramboke land having thus been recorded in various revenue records, it is the clear case of the respondent that the land in question having been situated in a jagir village and jagirdars having conferred title or pattas in non-khalsa villages, vendor of the respondent’s father derived title thus and he in turn by means of a registered sale deed, executed way back in the year 1933, conveyed the property in favour of the father of the respondent and since then the father of the respondent and after him, the respondent, for more than a period of five decades, have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same by raising permanent structures thereon and even otherwise by virtue of their long possession he perfected title by adverse possession. The plea of the respondent appears to be two-fold; firstly, that he has set up independent title over the property and secondly, that even otherwise he perfected his title by means of adverse possession. Of course, both cannot co-exist. Parties can be permitted to take alternative pleas only. Having regard to the above pleas taken by either parties, it is to be seen whether the respondent has committed an act of land grabbing or not, which alone shall have to be pleaded and proved and
