2025:HHC:32177 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 14679 of 2025 Decided on : 17.09.2025 Raghubir Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Munish Datwalia, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents. Sh. Balbir Singh, Clerk, Tehsil Barsar, in person. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order quashing the impugned orders dated 03.03.2020 Annexure P-1 passed by the AC grade 1st Badsar district Hamirpur 11.01.2022 Annexure P2, passed by Sub Divisional officer Badsar district Hamirpur and 09.04.2025 Annexure P- 3 passed by divisional commissioner Mandi H.P. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:32177 b) In alternative the impugned order may be remanded back to AC grade 1st with directions to hear and decide the matter afresh in accordance with the provision of Section 163 of H.P Land Revenue Act.” 2. When this case was listed on 10.09.2025, the following order was passed:- “CWP No.14679 of 2025 & CMP No.22257 of 2025 Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State. As prayed for, reply be filed by the next date of hearing. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court to the impugned orders as well as documents appended with the petition. He submits that herein, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. In the response that was filed to the proceedings, a specific stand was taken by the petitioner that he had perfected his title by way of adverse possession, yet, without resorting to the procedure as is prescribed in sub-section (3) of Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, the impugned orders have been passed by the Authority, which as per the learned Counsel are perverse orders and are the orders void ab 3 2025:HHC:32177 initio. In light of the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General is directed to produce the original of the record, in terms whereof, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, so that it can be ascertained as to what was the response filed to the said proceedings by the petitioner. List on 17.09.2025, as prayed for. Record be produced on the said date. Till then, the operation of the impugned orders shall remain stayed.” 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General has produced the original record, perusal whereof demonstrates that in the reply filed by the petitioner to the notice under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), he took the defence of adverse possession. That being so, the orders under challenge are not sustainable because Assistant Collector concerned did not convert himself into a Civil Court in terms of the provisions of Section 163(3) of the Act and, therefore, the order passed by the said Authority as well as the other Authorities in Appeal and Revision are perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law. On this short count, this petition 4 2025:HHC:32177 is allowed. Order dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Badsar, District Hamirpur, order dated 11.01.2022 (Annexure P-2), passed by Sub- Divisional Officer, Badsar, District Hamirpur and order date 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-3), passed by Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, H.P., are quashed and set aside. 4. At this stage, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that liberty be granted to the State to proceed in the matter from the stage, reply was filed by the petitioner. Liberty is granted to the State, as prayed for. State may proceed with the matter from the stage, reply was filed by the petitioner to the proceedings initiated against him under Section 163 of the Act, but by following the procedure prescribed in Section 163(3) of the Act. 5. The petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 17, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)