JUDGMENT : JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J. Proceedings under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (the Act in short) were initiated against the petitioner. The Assistant Collector First Grade, on 16.01.2018, ordered ejectment of the petitioner from the land in question. Petitioner’s appeal against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Collector on 20.08.2019. Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi [exercising powers of Financial Commissioner (Appeals)] on 29.03.2025. The above concurrent orders passed against the petitioner by three revenue authorities below ordering his ejectment from the land has led the petitioner to institute present writ petition. 2. On the basis of a demarcation carried out by revenue officer on 30.01.2016, a notice under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 was issued to the petitioner by Assistant Collector First Grade, Karsog, District Mandi on 21.04.2016, alleging that he had encroached upon Government land comprised in: - (i) Khasra No. 596/542/1 measuring 00-00-16 bighas; and (ii) Khasra No.596/542/2 measuring 00-04-00 bighas, in Mohal Alsindi, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. Petitioner in his response to the notice, pleaded that construction over the land in question was raised by his late grandfather about 60 years ago; The land even if owned by the State, had been coming in possession of petitioner’s family over the years. Petitioner’s possession over the land was  continuous, uninterrupted, peaceful and had ripened into adverse possession. Petitioner also alleged that demarcation of the land had neither been carried out by the Competent Authority nor in accordance with prescribed procedure. According to the petitioner, demarcation could not have been conducted by a revenue officer below the rank of Assistant Collector First Grade, whereas, in the instant case, Field Kanungo, had demarcated the land and further three ‘pucca’ triangle points had not been fixed. 3(i) Assistant Collector First Grade vide his order dated 16.01.2018 (Annexure P-4), held that:- Petitioner had not been able to produce any substantive evidence in support of his plea of being in possession over the land in question for more than sixty years; The evidence led by the State had proved petitioner’s unauthorized and illegal possession over the Government land. 3(i) Assistant Collector First Grade vide his order dated 16.01.2018 (Annexure P-4), held that:- Petitioner had not been able to produce any substantive evidence in support of his plea of being in possession over the land in question for more than sixty years; The evidence led by the State had proved petitioner’s unauthorized and illegal possession over the Government land. It was further held that demarcation was conducted as per law and Field Kanungo had been authorized to give land demarcation under general instructions issued on 13.09.2012 by the Principal Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner was accordingly ordered to be evicted from the land. 3(ii) Before the Appellate Authority i.e. Sub Divisional Collector Karsog, District Mandi,  the main focus of the petitioner was around demarcation of the land carried out by the Field Kanungo. According to the petitioner, demarcation could not be carried out by a revenue officer below the rank of Assistant Collector Second Grade, whereas, in the instant case, it was the Field Kanungo, who demarcated the land. This according to the petitioner vitiated the entire proceedings initiated by the respondents under Section 163 of the Act. The Sub Divisional Collector rejected petitioner’s contention in relation to competence of the Field Kanungo to demarcate the land. By placing reliance upon State instructions dated 16.07.2012/ 13.09.2012 which authorized the Revenue Officer concerned (Assistant Collector of either grade) to direct the Field Kanungo or a consultant to carry out demarcation of the land in presence of necessary parties, it was held that Field Kanungo was competent to give demarcation of the land. A perusal of order passed by the Sub Divisional Collector on 20.08.2019 reflects that notwithstanding above, the Appellate Authority, in the interest of justice, on 12.06.2018, directed the Assistant Collector First Grade to conduct fresh demarcation of the land in accordance with applicable rules and instructions and submit the report. Petitioner was also directed to remain present before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi on 18.06.2018 and also on the spot for demarcation on the day fixed by the said authority. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Sub Divisional Collector, land was demarcated afresh in presence of petitioner on 25.05.2019. Petitioner again raised objection that the demarcation had to be conducted by a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar (Assistant Collector Second Grade). Pursuant to the directions issued by the Sub Divisional Collector, land was demarcated afresh in presence of petitioner on 25.05.2019. Petitioner again raised objection that the demarcation had to be conducted by a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar (Assistant Collector Second Grade). The plea was turned down by the Sub Divisional  Collector keeping  in  view  the office letter/general instructions dated 13.09.2012 that authorized Assistant Collector of either grade to depute Field Kanungo for  demarcating the land. The demarcation that was conducted in presence of the petitioner was held to be in accordance with law and prescribed procedure. Petitioner’s  appeal  was  dismissed on 20.08.2019 (Annexure P-5) thereby affirming the order passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade. 3(iii) Petitioner preferred revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner. The said Authority exercising the powers  of  Financial  Commissioner  (Appeals)  Himachal   Pradesh, dismissed the same as devoid of merit on 29.03.2025 (Annexure P-6). 3(iv) In the above background, petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “a) That the impugned order of the respondent s No.2 to 4 annexed as P-4 to P-6 may kindly be set aside/quashed and declared null and void and not binding upon the petitioner. (b)  That the respondents also be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 163(iii) as Civil Court as fresh and thereafter providing opportunities to both parties to lead their evidence and taking in to consideration the evidence led by the petitioner.” 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner raised an issue that in his reply filed to the notice  issued under Section 163 of the Act, petitioner had taken the plea of being in adverse possession over the land. In view of this defence, the Assistant Collector First Grade was required in terms of Section 163 of the Act to decide the question of title over the land, raised by the petitioner, by converting himself into Civil Court. This recourse was not adopted by the Assistant Collector First Grade. Consequently, entire proceedings  have  to  held  illegal. Placing  reliance  upon Joginder  Singh & Others Vs. This recourse was not adopted by the Assistant Collector First Grade. Consequently, entire proceedings  have  to  held  illegal. Placing  reliance  upon Joginder  Singh & Others Vs. State of H.P. & others, CWP No.2088 of 2016 decided on 07.04.2025 learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of plea of adverse possession set up by the petitioner, it was imperative for the Assistant Collector  to have converted into Civil Court to decide the question of title. Failure of Assistant Collector First Grade in converting himself into Civil Court to decide the question of title raised by the petitioner would render the ejectment proceedings illegal. Relevant portion of the decision pressed into service reads as under:- “6. Section 163(3) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act provides as under:- “Section 163(3) in The Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953 (3)[ When there is a question as to title or to the adverse possession, wherein the possession is claimed by an encroacher for a period beyond thirty years in relation to the land from which ejectment is made or is to be made under this section, the Revenue Officer, not below the rank of an Assistant Collector of the First Grade, shall proceed to determine the question, as if he, were a civil court and shall exercise all such powers as are exerciseable by a civil court.] [Added by H.P.L.R. (Amendment) Act 1989 Act No. 15 of 1989 published in R.H.P. ex-ordinary pages 1503-1504].” 7. This provision is mandatory and in case in the course of the proceedings initiated against a person, he takes the stand that he has been in possession of the land for more than thirty years, then the revenue officer, not below the rank of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, has to proceed to determine the question, as if he, were a Civil Court and shall exercise all such powers as are exercisable by a Civil Court. Despite the defence of possession of more than thirty years having been taken by the petitioners, the Assistant Collector, 1 st Grade did not convert itself into a Civil Court. 8. Therefore, the order that was passed by the officer was per se bad. Despite the defence of possession of more than thirty years having been taken by the petitioners, the Assistant Collector, 1 st Grade did not convert itself into a Civil Court. 8. Therefore, the order that was passed by the officer was per se bad. The Appellate Authority and the Revenue Authority also erred in not appreciating that as the provisions of Section 163 (3) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act were mandatory and were required to be religiously followed, the derogation of the same by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, vitiated the proceedings. Both the Authorities though went into the question of the mandate of Section 163 (3) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, but erred in upholding the order passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. 9. Therefore, as this Court has no hesitation in holding that the orders passed by Assistant Collector as well as the Appellate and Revisional Authorities are bad in law, this petition is allowed. The order of eviction as well as the subsequent orders passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities are quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Dharamshala, with the direction that the said Authority shall proceed in the matter in accordance with the provisions of Section 163 (3) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any view on the merits of the case and the Authority concerned shall proceed with the matter uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court in the course of adjudication of this petition.” 4(ii) Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act reads as under:- “163. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any view on the merits of the case and the Authority concerned shall proceed with the matter uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court in the course of adjudication of this petition.” 4(ii) Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act reads as under:- “163. Prevention of encroachment on lands.- (1) Where Government land or land which has been reserved for the site of village or for the common purposes or uses of the estate right holders or of the co-sharers therein, has been encroached upon by any person or co-sharer for any purpose including construction of a building or other structures or by planting trees therein, then- (a) the Revenue Officer may of his own motion or on the report of patwari of the circle duly verified by the Kanungo of the Circle or on the application of any estate right holder or cosharers, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard, shall eject him from such land by order 4 [within six months from the date of taking of cognizance or from the date of receipt of such report or from the date of filing of such application, as the case may be, however, the period may further be extended upto three months for the reasons to be recorded in writing], in the manner prescribed; (b)  if the encroacher has erected any building or other structure or has planted trees on the encroached land, the same shall, in the prescribed manner, vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances: Provided that if the building or structure attachments thereto are situated partly in the owned land of the encroacher and partly on the encroached land, the Revenue Officer shall be competent to demolish the portion of the building or structure on the encroached land if the encroacher fails to demolish it himself as ordered by the Revenue Officer; and (c)  the Revenue Officer shall impose upon the encroacher a fine upto Rs. 1 [20,000/- or the prevalent market value of the land, whichever is higher] per bigha or part thereof, which shall be recoverable, as if it were an arrear of land revenue. 1 [20,000/- or the prevalent market value of the land, whichever is higher] per bigha or part thereof, which shall be recoverable, as if it were an arrear of land revenue. (2) If a person who has been evicted from any land under this section again occupies the land without authority for such occupation, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees or double the prevalent market value of the land, whichever is higher rupees or with both: Provided that no court shall take cognizance under this sub-section of an offence unless a report in writing is made by a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector First Grade. (3) When there is a question as to title or to the adverse possession, wherein the possession is claimed by an encroacher for a period beyond thirty years in relation to the land from which ejectment is made or is to be made under this section, the Revenue Officer, not below the rank of an Assistant Collector of the First Grade, may proceed to determine the question, as if he were a civil court and shall exercise all such powers as are exercisable by a civil court. (4) For the determination of the question under sub-section (3), the Revenue Officer shall follow the same procedure as is applicable to the trail of an original suit by a civil court, and he shall record a judgement and decree containing the particulars required by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) to be specified therein. (5) An appeal from the decree of the Revenue Officer made under sub-section (4) shall lie to the District Judge as if that decree were a decree of a Subordinate Judge in an original suit. (6) A further appeal from the appellate decree of a District Judge upon an appeal under sub-section (5), shall lie to the High Court only if the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved. (7) No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Revenue Officer or any person acting under this section in respect of anything in good faith done or purported to have been done under the provisions thereof or the rules made thereunder. (7) No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Revenue Officer or any person acting under this section in respect of anything in good faith done or purported to have been done under the provisions thereof or the rules made thereunder. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, any person  who  holds land under  a lease granted by the Government for a fixed term and continues to be in possession of the land beyond the expiry of the period of lease shall be deemed to be encroacher unless such person gets the lease extended or renewed.” The ratio of above decision is based upon unamended Section 163(3) of H.P. Land Revenue Act wherein the word ‘shall proceed’ was used in relation to duty of the Assistant Collector while deciding the plea of adverse possession taken by the alleged encroacher. By virtue of amendment carried out in Section 163(3), under the H.P. Act No.15 of 2000, the words ‘shall proceed’ stand replaced with the words ‘may proceed’. The substitution of the words ‘shall’ with ‘may’ was not brought to the notice of the Court in Joginder Singh2. The amendment gives discretion to the revenue officer for proceeding in the matter as a Civil Court in case plea of adverse possession is taken or question of title is raised by the alleged encroacher. This discretion though has to be exercised judiciously, reasonably and in accordance with law. It will be in place to refer to Manorama Devi Versus State of H.P. & others,  LPA No.168 of 2024, decided on 23.12.2024 wherein appellant’s contention was that the Assistant Collector was under legal obligation  to  convert  himself  into  Civil  Court  once  the appellant had raised the plea of having perfected title over the alleged encroached land by way of adverse possession. Hon’ble Division Bench rejected the plea as under:- “8. It is clear from the reading of above provisions that the use of word “may” in sub section (3) of Section 163 of the Act makes it discretionary for the Assistant Collector 1st Grade either to convert itself as a Civil Court or to decide it otherwise, though, the discretion is judicial discretion and cannot be exercised arbitrarily. 9. It is clear from the reading of above provisions that the use of word “may” in sub section (3) of Section 163 of the Act makes it discretionary for the Assistant Collector 1st Grade either to convert itself as a Civil Court or to decide it otherwise, though, the discretion is judicial discretion and cannot be exercised arbitrarily. 9. The record reveals that respondent No.3 vide order dated 05.11.2018 had ordered the ejectment of appellant by returning a finding of fact that the appellant had failed to prove her long standing possession of 50 years. He placed reliance on the jamabandi for the year 2014-15, besides other evidence on record to come to such conclusion. The appellate authority noted the contention of the appellant that respondent No.3 had failed to decide the question of adverse possession raised by appellant, in accordance with law and proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the appellant by upholding the finding of fact recorded by respondent No.3 and also by taking into consideration the admission allegedly made by the appellant as to encroachment carried by her. 10. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) also noticed the contention of the appellant with respect to non-consideration of the plea of adverse possession and rejected the same by holding that mere raising of the question of title by adverse possession does not make it incumbent upon the revenue Officer to accept it as he has to ascertain and determine whether such a question in fact is involved or not. The satisfaction of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, holding proceedings under Section 163 of the Act, has been held to be sine qua non to determine the question as a Civil Court. 11. Learned writ Court has also non-suited the appellant by taking into consideration her plea in the reply before respondent No.3 that she had submitted her application for regularization of encroached land to the competent authority in the year 2002. Learned Single Judge noticed that in view of such plea, the plea of adverse possession allegedly raised by the appellant had been rendered nugatory. 12. We find no reason to disagree with the reasons assigned by the learned writ Court. Once, the appellant had admitted by way of her pleading that she had applied for regularization of encroached land to the competent authority in 2002, the plea of adverse possession was deemed to have been given up. 12. We find no reason to disagree with the reasons assigned by the learned writ Court. Once, the appellant had admitted by way of her pleading that she had applied for regularization of encroached land to the competent authority in 2002, the plea of adverse possession was deemed to have been given up. Noticeably, as per the appellant she had allegedly perfected the title by adverse possession on the encroached land in the year 2002 itself. 13. In above discussed circumstances, no fault can be found in the proceedings of respondent No.3. Once, there was no plea of adverse possession, respondent No.3 was not bound to exercise discretion for converting himself into a Civil Court.” 4(iii) In terms of Section 163(3) of the Act, when there is a question as to title or adverse possession wherein possession over the land in question is claimed by an encroacher for a period beyond thirty years, the revenue officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector First Grade ‘may proceed’ to determine the question as if he was a Civil Court by exercising all such powers as are exercised by the Civil Court. In the given case all the three Revenue Authorities have concurrently returned findings of facts that petitioner could not produce on record any evidence whatsoever much less credible in support of his plea that he or his predecessors-in-interest were in possession over the  land  in  question  for  more  than  thirty  years. The response to the notice filed by the petitioner suggests that petitioner never even specifically prayed before Assistant Collector First Grade to convert into Civil Court. Save and except for the following isolated sentence in petitioner’s reply about his being in adverse possession, no further pleadings in support of the plea can be discerned:- “That allegation made against the respondent is wrong, incorrect and hence denied. It is submitted that alleged house has been constructed by the Grand-father of the respondent about 60 years back. It is pertinent to mention here that Smt. Begamu Devi mother of respondent has executed registered WILL of all moveable and immovable property on dated 13-12-2004 in favour of the respondent. If it is proved that the alleged house is upon the Govt. area in that event the possession of late Sh. It is pertinent to mention here that Smt. Begamu Devi mother of respondent has executed registered WILL of all moveable and immovable property on dated 13-12-2004 in favour of the respondent. If it is proved that the alleged house is upon the Govt. area in that event the possession of late Sh. Chhawadu, then Shambhu then Smt. Begamu Devi and respondent are continues, uninterrupted and peaceful of the grandparents and parents of respondent and ripened into adverse possession. (Copy of WILL attached)” Petitioner had ample opportunity to demonstrate his alleged possession over the land for years together to establish his plea of adverse possession. Not a semblance of evidence was produced by him in this regard before the Assistant Collector First Grade. State produced its witnesses who were cross examined by the petitioner. Petitioner also stepped in the witness box and was cross-examined. Considering petitioner’s pleadings, his defence, there is no necessity for the Assistant Collector First Grade to convert himself into Civil Court, the occasion did not arise. There was no requirement in law mandating the Assistant Collector to convert into Civil Court the moment plea of adverse possession is taken. It is not petitioner’s case that he even requested the Assistant Collector to convert himself into Civil Court. Petitioner has also failed to demonstrate the prejudice caused to him by Assistant Collector, not deciding the case as a Civil Court. It is not the case of petitioner that any evidence produced by him was not considered by the authority. The land admittedly is owned by the State Government. To a query of the Court during hearing of this petition, as to whether the petitioner is in possession of any evidence whatsoever, to reflect his adverse possession over the land in question for more than thirty years, the answer given by the leaned counsel for the petitioner was in the negative. That being the admitted position, no fault can be found in the order passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade. It is not just mere one-line figuring in the reply “possession of the petitioner over the premises in question dates back to more than thirty years”, that mandates the concerned Revenue Authority to convert itself into a Civil Court. That being the admitted position, no fault can be found in the order passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade. It is not just mere one-line figuring in the reply “possession of the petitioner over the premises in question dates back to more than thirty years”, that mandates the concerned Revenue Authority to convert itself into a Civil Court. For doing that, for converting into a Civil Court, a question of title/plea of adverse possession must be effectively and substantively raised, it must reflect from the pleadings, supported by some form of foundational facts. The Authority below has to exercise its discretion to determine as to whether the defence taken by the alleged encroacher in the ejectment proceedings merits determination of question of title/adverse possession, whether such question of tittle/plea of adverse possession actually arises from the pleadings, whether there is tangible substance in the pleadings and the defence taken by the respondent. Merely on standalone assertion of being in adverse possession of the alleged encroacher facing ejectment proceedings for having encroached government land, the Authority concerned is not bound to convert itself into Civil Court. 4(iv) Apart from the issue discussed in para-4, no other point was urged during hearing of the petition. 5. Consequently, there is no merit in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.