2025:HHC:16319 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5947 of 2024 Decided on: 27.05.2025 Prema Nand … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Addl. AG for respondents No. 1 to 5. : Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate for respondent No. 6. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) That the impugned orders dated 02-01-2020, Annexure P-1, passed by the Ld Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi, whereby he upheld the ex-parte order of eviction dated 05.04.2018 passed of the Ld Assistant Collector 2nd Grade Dehar, Mandi, in respect of land comprised in Khasra No. 383/1, measuring 0-01-00 Bighas, situated at Muhal Baroti, Tehsil Dehar, District Mandi, H.P., and order dated 28.06.2019 may kindly be quashed and 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:16319 set aside and the eviction proceeding initiated against the present petitioner may also be ordered to be dropped and the petitioner entitled to the land, in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. There is a very short controversy involved in this writ petition. Proceedings were initiated against the present petitioner under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘1954 Act’ for short) and these proceedings have culminated into issuance of an order of ejectment from the government land, which order has been confirmed by the Appellate as well as Revisional Authorities. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the first Authority as well as the Appellate and Revisional Authorities, are not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that when the petitioner had taken the defence of having perfected his title by way of adverse possession in the response filed to the proceedings initiated under Section 163 of the 1954 Act, the Authority ought to have had converted itself into a Civil Court in terms of the provisions of Section 163(3) of the 1954 Act and failure on the part of the Authority to do so, vitiates everything. Accordingly, he prayed that present petition be allowed as prayed for. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other 3 2025:HHC:16319 hand, has defended the orders passed by the Authorities and has submitted that as it stands proved that the petitioner has encroached upon the government land, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Authorities in terms whereof it has been directed that the encroachments be removed. 5. Mr. Jagan Nath, learned Counsel for the private respondent has also submitted that as it has been proved that the petitioner indeed is an encroacher, the contention of the petitioner that the Authorities have not acted in consonance with the statutory provisions is completely wrong. He submitted that the record itself clearly demonstrated that the petitioner had encroached upon the government land. The findings to this effect returned by the Authorities do not suffer from any perversity as this fact is clearly borne out from the record. Accordingly, he submitted that in light of these facts, as there is no merit in the present petition, the same be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings and documents appended therewith including the impugned orders. 7. As already observed hereinabove, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 163 of the H.P Land Revenue Act on the ground that he had encroached upon the 4 2025:HHC:16319 government land. Reply to said proceedings filed by the petitioner is appended with the writ petition as Annexure P-3. A perusal thereof demonstrates that in response to the notice served upon him under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, the petitioner took the defence that the land on which the room was constructed was in his possession for more than 50 years and before him, his predecessors- in-interest were in possession of the land. It was further averred in the reply that he had become the owner of the land by way of adverse possession and his possession was open, continuous, hostile and for more than 50 years. 8. Section 163(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954, reads as under:- 163(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 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 (may proceed) to determine the question, as if he, were a civil court and shall exercise all such powers as are exercisable by a civil court.” 9. In terms of this sub-Section, if proceedings are initiated against someone under Section 163(c) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, and the question of title or adverse possession arises therein, then, 5 2025:HHC:16319 the Revenue Officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector First Grade may proceed to determine the question, as if he were a civil Court and shall exercise all powers as are exercisable by a civil Court. 10. A perusal of the record demonstrates that in the present case despite the fact that the petitioner had taken the plea of having perfected his title by way of adverse possession, the Court concerned did not convert itself into a civil Court and proceeded with the matter as is envisaged under Section 163(c) of the 1954 Act. 11. In fact, ejectment order dated 05.04.2018, which is at page 39 of the paper book, has been passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. In appeal and revision, despite this ground having been taken by the petitioner that the order passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade was non est, as the officer was having no authority to adjudicate in the light of the provisions of Section 163(3) of the 1954 Act, both the Authorities erred in not appreciating this aspect of the matter in the light of the provisions of Section 163(3) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. 12. The authorities erred in upholding the order of ejectment passed by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade by not appreciating that as the petitioner had taken the defence of adverse possession, it was only Assistant Collector First Grade who could 6 2025:HHC:16319 have decided the issue and that too after converting itself into a civil Court and thereafter, proceeding with the matter as if it were a Civil Court. 13. In light of above discussion, this petition is allowed. The order of ejectment passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, dated 05.04.2018, as well as orders passed by the Appellate Authority dated 18.06.2019 and Revisional Authority (Divisional Commissioner, Mandi), dated 02.01.2020, are quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Assistant Collector First Grade, with the direction to convert itself into a civil Court and proceed with the matter in consonance with the provisions of Section 163(3) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observation as far as merit of the case is concerned and the authority shall proceed with the matter on the basis of material and evidence on record, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 27, 2025 (narender)