2025:HHC:27263 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12414 of 2025 Decided on: 12.08.2025 Ram Rattan … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr.Kuldeep Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate, General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “Therefore, the Hon'ble Court is humbly prayed and requested to allow present writ petition and set aside the orders passed by respondent no. 2 dated 30.06.2025 in petition no. 294/2025 titled as Ram Rattan versus State of H.P. (Annexure P-1), orders passed by respondent no. 3 dated 27.03.2025 in appeal no. 01/VIII of 2022 titled as Ram Rattan versus State of H.P (Annexure P-2) and orders passed by respondent no. 4 dated 29.10.2021 in case пo. 48/2018 titled as State Versus Ram Rattan (Annexure P- 3) and direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from land in question measuring 0-4 Biswa comprised in Khasra No. 1026/1, Khewat/Khatauni No. 335/387 min situated in Village & Post Office Bhogpur, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:27263 Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan H.P. without following due process of law.” 2. Though, learned Additional Advocate General submits that on account of inclement weather the requisite record is not available, however, learned Counsel for the petitioner has made available for the perusal of the Court a certified copy of the reply filed by the petitioner to the notice issued to him under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. 3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act which have led to the filing passing of the impugned orders against the petitioner. The petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that as the petitioner took the defence of his having perfected title over the suit and by way of adverse possession, the Authorities ought to have had followed the procedure prescribed in Section 163 (3) of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act in the absence of said procedure having been followed, the impugned order is per se bad. 4. When the case was listed before this Court on 31.07.2025, the following order was passed:- “Issue notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. The limited issue involved in this petition is that as 3 2025:HHC:27263 per the petitioner despite the fact that he took the plea of the adverse possession in the response that was filed to him to the notice served upon him under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, the authorities have not proceeded in the matter in terms of Sub-Section 3 of Section163 of the Act. Learned Additional Advocate General is directed to produce the original record of the eviction proceedings initiated against the petitioner on 12.08.2025. Till further orders, the order of eviction passed against the petitioner shall not be acted upon.” 5. As already observed hereinabove today, learned Counsel for the petitioner made available for the perusal of the Court the certified copy of the reply filed to the notice under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also handed over a photocopy of the reply that was filed to the notice under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue duly attested by the learned Counsel, which is taken on record. A perusal of Para-5 of the reply filed on merit by the petitioner demonstrates that therein the following stand was taken by the petitioner:- “5. That the notice issued is illegal, null and void because the state has lost its rights in the suit land and the respondent has become owner of the land in dispute by the way of adverse possession being occupied by the respondent since 15-5-1959. under these circumstances, 4 2025:HHC:27263 the question of title is involved in this case and this court in not competent to decide the question of title and as such the file deserves to be sent to the Ld. A.C. 1st Grade for determining the question of title as envisaged under section 16 as applicable. Hence notice is illegal and misconceived one.” 6. Thus, in light of the fact that in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, the petitioner took a specific stand of having perfected his title by way of adverse possession, learned Court below ought to have had converted itself into a Civil Court and proceeded with the matter thereafter in accordance with law. Not only this, no order in the proceedings under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act could have been passed by Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, as has been done in the present case and it was only Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, who was authorized in law to pass appropriate orders in the matter. However, a perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that despite the stand of adverse possession taken by the petitioner, the proceedings were at the first instance decided by Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade. The order thus passed by the said Authority, dated 29.10.2021, is nothing, but a nullity. As the Appellate and the Revisional Authorities failed to appreciate this extremely important aspect of the matter the orders passed by them are also nullity. 5 2025:HHC:27263 7. Accordingly, in light of above observations, this writ petition is allowed. The orders under challenge, i.e. order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), orders dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure P-3), are quashed and set aside and as prayed for, the matter is remanded back to Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, with the direction to decide the same afresh from the stage of filing of the reply to the notice under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act by the petitioner herein by converting itself into a civil lis. It is clarified that in course of the adjudication of this petition, this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner be decided in light of the defence taken by the petitioner in the said proceedings. 8. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 12, 2025 (Rishi)