2026:HHC:1261 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.20385 of 2025 Decided on 06th January 2026 Israel Deen …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- i. “That an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued and the order dated 19.08.2010 passed by learned A.C. 1st Grade Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., (Annexure PO-5) order dated 10.08.2011 (Annexure P- 6) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Collector Nurpur, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. and order dated 07.08.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner Kangra exercising the power of Hon’ble Financial Commissioner (Appeal) Shimla, H.P. may kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of law and justice. ii. That an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued and the case of the petitioner may kindly be remanded back to the respondents with a direction to consider the case afresh.” 2026:HHC:1261 2 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of eviction passed against him under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953. 3. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the orders under challenge are per se not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the authorities erred in not appreciating that because the petitioner had taken the plea of adverse possession in the response filed to the notice issued to him, under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, it was mandatory for the authorities to have had followed the procedure laid down in Section 163(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, which admittedly was not followed in the case. 4. In order to ascertain the fact as to whether in the reply filed to the notice under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, the present petitioner had taken the stand of adverse possession, the record of the case was called for. The record stands produced for the perusal of the Court by the learned Deputy Advocate General. Perusal thereof 2026:HHC:1261 3 demonstrates that there is on record reply to notice under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, which was submitted before the Authority on 06.06.2008. It is the same as Annexure P-4 appended with the petition. Further, perusal of the same demonstrates that in Para-3 of the preliminary objections, a plea was taken that the present petitioner had become owner of the land in dispute by way of adverse possession, being in possession thereof for more than 30 years. 5. In light of the fact that the petitioner had taken the plea of adverse possession in the response filed to the notice issued under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, it was incumbent upon the Authority to have had followed the procedure prescribed in Sub-section (3) of Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. The Authority mandatorily was required to convert itself into a Civil Court and thereafter, the proceedings were to be held as are held before a Civil Court. However, record demonstrates that in the present case, this was not done and the matter was decided by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, without converting itself into a 2026:HHC:1261 4 Civil Court. This obviously renders the order passed by the learned Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Nurpur, H.P., as bad in law. As the appellate and revisional authorities have also erred in not appreciating this extremely important aspect of the matter, therefore, their orders are also not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders of eviction passed against the petitioner by the respondent-Authorities are quashed and set aside. However, in light of the fact that the petition has been allowed on a technical ground, as prayed for by the learned Deputy Advocate General, the respondent-State is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner from the stage the reply was filed by him to the notice under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge January 06, 2026 (Vinod)