2025:HHC:31742 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 12276 of 2025 Decided on : 10.09.2025 Joginder Singh …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. Yuyutsu Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 7. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Sugandh Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.8. Mr. Lalit Kumar, Senior Assistant, in person. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 19.02.2015, passed by Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Darlaghat, in Case No. 24/13A of 2013, in terms whereof, in the proceedings, initiated against the petitioner 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:31742 under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1953 Act’), the petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the Government land as well as order dated 22.06.2016, passed by Collector, Sub-Division Arki, in Case No. 11-VIII B of 2015, in terms whereof, Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and order dated 06.10.2016, passed by Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, in case No. 493/16, in terms whereof, revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. 2. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders were perverse and void ab initio for the reason that while passing the impugned orders, the Authorities erred in not appreciating that as the petitioner had taken the defence of adverse possession in the response that was filed to the notice issued to him under Section 163 of the 1953 Act, the Authorities were bound to follow the procedure laid down in sub-Section (3) of Section 163 of the 1953 Act. In the absence of the same being done by the Authorities, he contended that the impugned orders were not sustainable in law. 3 2025:HHC:31742 3. To verify the fact as to whether this defence of adverse possession was taken before the first Authority by the petitioners or not, the record of the case was requisitioned by the Court. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General has produced the record. On the strength of record, he apprised the Court that the petitioner indeed had taken the defence of adverse possession in the reply filed to the notice issued to him under Section 163 of the 1953 Act. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.8 and having perused the record of the case, in light of the fact that the respondents had taken the defence of having perfected its title by way of adverse possession in the proceedings which were initiated under Section 163 of the 1953 Act, the act of the Authorities of not proceeding in the matter in terms of Section 163(3) of the 1953 Act, renders the impugned orders bad in law. 6. 6. As per sub-Section 3 of Section 163 of the 1953 Act, it is mentioned that whenever the defence of adverse 4 2025:HHC:31742 possession is taken by the incumbent against whom proceedings are initiated under Section 163 of the 1953 Act, then the Court has to convert itself into a Civil Court and the matter has to be heard by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade as if it was a Civil Court. Admittedly, in the present case, this procedure has not been followed. This means the order passed by the first Authority which incidentally was not Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, but Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, is void ab initio and bad in law. In light of the fact that this aspect of the matter has not been considered in its correct perspective even by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities, the orders passed by said Authorities, are also not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. In view of these observations, this petition is allowed. Order dated 19.02.2015, passed by Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Darlaghat, in Case No. 24/13A of 2013 as well as order dated 22.06.2016, passed by Collector, Sub- Division Arki, in Case No. 11-VIII B of 2015 and order dated 06.10.2016, passed by Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, in case No. 493/16, are quashed and set aside. 8. At this stage, learned Deputy Advocate General 5 2025:HHC:31742 submitted that as the petition is being allowed on a technical grounds, the State be given the liberty to proceed in the matter as per the provisions of Section 163 of the 1953 Act, from the stage of the filing of the reply by the petitioners to the notice issued to them under Section 163 of the 1953 Act. Respondents-State is allowed to proceed in the matter as from the stage of the filing of the reply by the petitioners. In the meanwhile, electricity and water connection of the petitioner be also restored. 9. The petition is disposed of, in above-said terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 10, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)