2025:HHC:14741-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1157 of 2017 Decided on: 20.05.2025 Santokh Singh … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Mr. Surjeet Thakur, Superintendent Grade-II, Tehsil Office Sadar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. and Mr. Ajay Kumar, Senior Assistant, O/O Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Distt. Mandi, H.P., are present in person alongwith relevant record. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “a). That the impugned orders of the respondents No.2 to 5 annexed as P-1, P-3 to P-5 may kindly be quashed and set aside having no binding upon the legal right of the petitioners. b). That case of the petitioner be remanded to the respondents with a direction to consider the claim of the petitioner keeping in view old nautor policy as there exist the cow shed of the petitioner on the suit land since long. c). That the respondent be also directed to maintain the revenue record as per the provision of H.P. Land Revenue Act.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:14741-DB 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, allegedly on the ground that the petitioner had encroached upon the Government land. 3. Vide order dated 07.11.1996 (Annexure P-1), Assistant Collector, 1st Grade held the petitioner to have had encroached upon the Government land and ordered removal of his encroachment. In appeal, the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 18.11.2010 (Annexure P-3), upheld the order passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. Similarly, in the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, in terms of order dated 16.07.2012 (Annexure P-4), the Revisional Authority upheld the orders passed by both the Authorities below. 4. In the course of the hearing of this petition, one of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner was that all the Authorities erred in not appreciating that when in response to the notice received by the petitioner under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act when he had taken the stand of his possession upon the land being adverse, the Court of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade ought to have had converted itself into a Civil Court and thereafter, proceeded in the matter to the said manner. In order to ascertain, as to whether any such defence was 3 2025:HHC:14741-DB taken by the petitioner, the Court directed the Office of learned Advocate General to produce the record. 5. Today, the record of the proceedings has been produced before the Court. A perusal thereof demonstrates that the reply to the Show Cause Notice issued under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act that was filed by the petitioner on 06.10.1993, contained the following averments:- “That in the alternative if the disputed construction is found on the Govt. land, in that event the replying respondent has acquired titled by virtue of adverse possession. The possession of the replying respondent over the land in dispute is for the last more than 35 years because the possession of the replying respondent is open, continuous, peaceful and un-intrrupted to the knowledge of Govt. Hence the possession of the replying respondent has matured in to titled.” A perusal of the averments made in this Para clearly demonstrates that the replying respondent had taken the stand in the alternative that if the disputed construction was found to be on the Government land, then in that event he had acquired the title by way of adverse possession. 6. In terms of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act where there is a question of title or adverse possession on land wherein possession is claimed by an encroacher for a period thereof 30 years in relation to 4 2025:HHC:14741-DB the land from which ejectment is made or is to be made under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, the Revenue Officer (not below the rank of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade) may proceed to determine the question as a Civil Court and shall exercise all powers as are exercisable by a Civil Court. 7. 7. A perusal of the record demonstrates that the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade did not convert itself into a Civil Court, nor it proceeded with the matter as a Civil Court. It continued to hear the matter in routine and decided the same in a routine manner. The Appellate as well as Revisional Authorities also erred in not appreciating this extremely important aspect of the matter, which in fact rendered the order passed by the 1st Authority, void ab initio. 8. Accordingly, in the light of above observations, this writ petition is allowed. The orders passed by the Authorities concerned, i.e. order dated 07.11.1996 (Annexure P-1), order dated 18.11.2010 (Annexure P-3), order dated 16.07.2012 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 17.02.2016 (Annexure P-5), are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court of learned Assistant Collector, 1st Grade concerned, with the direction that let the said Court convert itself into a Civil Court and thereafter, proceed with the matter in accordance with the provisions of sub- section (3) of Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act as expeditiously as possible. 5 2025:HHC:14741-DB 9. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 20, 2025 (Rishi)