2025:HHC:24949 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11212 of 2025 Decided on: 29.07.2025 Sh. Brij Lal … 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. Pranshul Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Dy. Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Sh. Lalit Kumar, Senior Assistant, office of Sub Tehsil Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. is present in person in the Court with requisite record. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “(i) For issuance of writ of certiorari or the nature thereof by quashing and setting aside the order dated 30/06/2025( Annexure P-4) passed by Patwari concerned, order dated 24- 03-2015 passed by the Ld. AC IInd Grade, Darlaghat in case No. 4/13- A OF 2014 and which was upheld vide order dated 22.8.2016 passed by Ld. Collector, Sub-Division, Arki, District Solan H.P. in an appeal titled as Brij Lal Vs. State of HP vide 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:24949 Case No. 06-XIII A of 2015 and affirmed by the Ld. Divisional Commissioner in case no 54/2021 vide order 03.06.2025.” 3. When this case was listed on 11.07.2025, the following order was passed by the Court:- “Notice. Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Learned Additional Advocate General to produce the record of the case before the Court on the next date as the only moot issue before the Court, as has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner, is whether the orders passed by the Authorities, are vitiated for the reason that in the light of the fact that the petitioner took the plea, when proceedings were initiated against him under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, that he had become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession, the Authorities were bound to have had followed the procedure laid down in Sub Section 3 of Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. List on 29.07.2025. In the meanwhile, operation of the impugned order shall also remain stayed.” 4. Today, learned Deputy Advocate General has made available the original record of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act for the perusal of the Court. A perusal of the record demonstrates that in the reply that was filed by the petitioner to the notice issued under 3 2025:HHC:24949 Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, he had taken the stand of his having perfected his title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. As the reply is short, the same is quoted herein below:- “1. That the ejectment Proceeding initiated against the respondent U/S 163 (1) of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act is not maintainable before this court as question of title is involved in the present proceeding and in those matters where question of title is involved, only AC.Ist grade is competent to decide the matter in the capacity of civil court. 2. That the matter involved in the present proceeding cannot be decided in summary manner. 3. That allegation made in the notice are incorrect and contrary to the factual position on the spot. Court Yard.cow shed and toilets/privies of the respondent are existing over the above said land, since 15th April, 1958 as the same were constructed by the father of the respondent. The respondent through his predecessor of the expert which will clinch out the controversy Proceeding against the respondent has been initiated at the instance of some vested interested persons who are inimical to the respondent and wrong report of encroachment has been prepared and submitted by the field revenue staff against the respondent. The respondent has become owner in possession of the land mentioned in the notice by way of adverse possession which have matured into the ownership by afflux of time. In view of the facts and 4 2025:HHC:24949 circumstances, proceeding initiated against the respondent is liable to be dropped.” 5. Yet, despite the fact that the petitioner took the plea that he had perfected his title over the suit land by way of adverse possession, the Authorities failed to proceed with the matter in terms of the provisions of Sub-Section 3 of Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. In terms of said statutory provision, once the petitioner had taken the stand of having perfected his title by way of adverse possession, then it was only the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade which could have adjudicated upon the matter and that too after converting itself into a Civil Court. As these provisions have been flouted by the Authority while proceeding under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act and as this issue has not been appreciated in its correct perspective by either of the Appellate/ Revisional Authorities, whose orders are under challenge by way of this petition, this petition as prayed for is allowed by quashing the impugned orders. 6. At this stage, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the State be given liberty to proceed against the petitioner in the proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act from the stage of receipt of the reply from the petitioner. The State may proceed in the matter from the stage of receipt of reply from the petitioner in the proceedings initiated against him under Section 163 5 2025:HHC:24949 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. In the light of the stand taken by the petitioner in his reply to Notice under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, the matter be heard by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade by converting itself into a Civil Court. Original record returned to the official concerned. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 29, 2025 (narender)