2025:HHC:9581 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2088 of 2016 Decided on: 07.04.2025 Joginder Singh & others … Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That annexure P-2 dated 22.10.2001 passed by AC 1 Grade, Dharamshala, Annexure P-3 dated 25.4.2006 passed by Sub Divisional Collector, Dharamshala, Annexure P-5 dated 4.1.2011, passed by Commissioner, Kangra Division and annexure P-6 passed by learned Financial Commissioner may kindly be quashed and set aside by accepting the present writ petition and notice as issued under seciton163 of the HP Land Revenue Act by respondents against the petitioners may be set aside after summoning the same from the respondents as petitioners regret to submit that the same somehow stand mis placed 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:9581 and despite efforts could not law their hands on the same. (ii) That in the alternative, it is submitted that after setting aside the impugned orders above stated matter may be remanded to AC 1st Grade with directions to hear and decide the matter afresh after converting itself into a civil court as per provision of Section 163 of HP Land Revenue Act in the interest of law and justice.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioners under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, on the ground that they allegedly had encroached upon the Government land. In the said proceedings, in terms of the impugned order, the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from the Government land. 3. On the last date of hearing, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners had argued that the orders passed against the petitioners are not sustainable in the eyes of law, for the reason that as it was the specific defence of the petitioners in the proceedings that were initiated under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act that they were coming in possession of the property in question for more than thirty two years, the Court of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade ought to have had converted itself into a Civil Court, which was not done and this vitiates the entire proceedings. To ascertain this fact, this Court had directed the State to produce original file of 3 2025:HHC:9581 the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. The original file has been produced today for the perusal of the Court. 4. Reply filed to the proceedings initiated under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act by the petitioners is being re- produced hereinbelow:- “That the notice is based as wrong facts reported to this court. In fact, the respondent has been coming in possession of the land under reference since the time of his father and that period is more than 32 years. The proceedings as such are barred by time. It is, therefore, prayed that the notice as issued may please be withdrawn and discharged.” 5. A perusal of the reply demonstrates that it was the specific defence of the respondents that they have been coming in possession of the land under Reference since the time of their father and that period was more than thirty two years and the proceedings were time barred. 6. Section 163(3) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act provides as under:- “ Section 163(3) in The Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953 (3)[ When there is a question as to title or to the adverse possession, wherein the possession is claimed by an encroacher for a period beyond thirty years in relation 4 2025:HHC:9581 to the land from which ejectment is made or is to be made under this section, the Revenue Officer, not below the rank of an Assistant Collector of the First Grade, shall proceed to determine the question, as if he, were a civil court and shall exercise all such powers as are exerciseable by a civil court.] [Added by H.P.L.R. (Amendment) Act 1989 Act No. 15 of 1989 published in R.H.P. ex-ordinary pages 1503-1504].” 7. This provision is mandatory and in case in the course of the proceedings initiated against a person, he takes the stand that he has been in possession of the land for more than thirty years, then the revenue officer, not below the rank of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, has to proceed to determine the question, as if he, were a Civil Court and shall exercise all such powers as are exerciseable by a Civil Court. Despite the defence of possession of more than thirty years having been taken by the petitioners, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade did not convert itself into a Civil Court. 8. Therefore, the order that was passed by the officer was per se bad. The Appellate Authority and the Revenue Authority also erred in not appreciating that as the provisions of Section 163 (3) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act were mandatory and were required to be religiously followed, the derogation of the same by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, vitiated the proceedings. Both the Authorities though went into the question of the mandate of Section 163 (3) of 5 2025:HHC:9581 the H.P. Land Revenue Act, but erred in upholding the order passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. 9. Therefore, as this Court has no hesitation in holding that the orders passed by Assistant Collector as well as the Appellate and Revisional Authorities are bad in law, this petition is allowed. The order of eviction as well as the subsequent orders passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities are quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Dharamshala, with the direction that the said Authority shall proceed in the matter in accordance with the provisions of Section 163 (3) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any view on the merits of the case and the Authority concerned shall proceed with the matter uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court in the course of adjudication of this petition. 10. The petition stands disposed of. Record stands returned back. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 07, 2025 (Rishi)