IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.10548 of 2023 Decided on 17th September 2025 Sh. Satya Prakash …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Kamakshi Tarlokta, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued quashing and setting aside orders, annexures P-3 to P-5, issued by the authorities below.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders that have been passed by the Authorities in the proceedings initiated against him under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act which have resulted in issuance of order of ejectment of the petitioner. 2 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of ejectment passed by AC 1st Grade dated 10.07.2017 is perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law and while passing the said order, the authority lost sight of the fact 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 Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, therefore, the authorities mandatorily had to convert itself into a Civil Court in terms of the provisions of sub- Section 3 of Section 163 and thereafter it ought to have proceeded with the matter accordingly. In the absence of said procedure being followed by the authority, the order passed by the authority is void ab-initio. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that subsequent orders passed by the authorities also are accordingly not sustainable in the eyes of law as said authorities have also not appreciated that as the provisions of sub-section 3 of Section 163 was not followed in letter and spirit, the orders originating therefrom, may be the original order or the appellate or revisional order, were perverse and bad in law. 3 4. On the other hand learned Deputy Advocate General has tried to justify the impugned orders by referring to the reply and by submitting that as the petitioner had encroached upon the Government land, therefore, there was no question of his perfecting the title upon the same by way of adverse possession. 5. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and have also gone through the impugned orders as well as the pleadings on record. 6. The response filed to the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act is appended with the petition as Annexure P-2. A perusal of the reply in general and para-5 thereof in particular demonstrates that the stand of the petitioner in the reply was that one Jivnu was in possession of the land whose possession thereupon was open, peaceful, uninterrupted and hostile to the knowledge of the Government. He sold the said land to one Balvinder and said Balvinder thereafter sold the land to the Bank and a hotel stood 4 constructed thereupon by Balvinder. It was further mentioned in the reply that as the land stood devolved upon them in the manner as was mentioned in the reply, their possession over the disputed land was in the same capacity as of their predecessors-in-interest i.e., to say Jivnu and Balvinder. 7. This Court is of the considered view that in the light of this defence taken by the respondents, obviously, the question of adverse possession was there and that being so Assistant Collector ought to have had converted itself into a Civil Court in terms of the provisions of sub-section 3 of Section 163 and decided the case in the mode and manner prescribed therein. The authority having failed to do so, renders the order passed by the said authority dated 10.07.2017 to be bad in law. Similarly, the subsequent orders passed by the authorities are also not sustainable in the eyes of law, because, they have also not appreciated the fact that in the light of the defence of the petitioner in the proceedings under Section 163 of the Act, the provisions of sub-section 3 of Section 163 could not have been done away with. 5 8. Accordingly, on this short count, this petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside by holding that as the procedure prescribed in sub-section 3 of Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act was not followed, therefore, the orders under challenge are not sustainable. 9. At this stage, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the petitioner be given liberty to proceed with the matter from the stage the reply was filed by the petitioner to the proceedings under Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act. In the light of the fact that the impugned orders have been set aside by this Court on technical ground, the prayer of learned Deputy Advocate General is allowed/granted and the State is liberty to proceed with the matter from the stage reply stands filed to the notice under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 17, 2025 (Vinod)