Back
2006 Supreme(HP) 63
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Hon'ble Judges: K.C. Sood, J.
Pola Ram – Appellants
Vs.
State of H.P. and Anr. – Respondent
R.S.A. No. 34 of 2006
Decided On: 21.03.2006
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: R.K. Gautam, Sr. Adv. and Anurag Sharma, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Ashok Choudhary, Add. Adv.General
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act in determining the jurisdiction for appeal in cases of encroachment on lands.
Headnote:
Section 163 - H.P. Land Revenue Act - [163] - The court discussed Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, which deals with the prevention of encroachment on lands, including the process for ejectment, assessment of damages, and imposition of fines. The court highlighted the provisions for determining questions of title or adverse possession, the procedure for appeal, and the limitation on legal proceedings against the Revenue Officer.
Fact of the Case:
Eviction proceedings were initiated against the appellant by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nalagarh, District Solan, from the disputed land. The Assistant Collector decided the case as a Civil Suit under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, based on the plaintiff's claim of title and adverse possession. The appellant appealed the decision before the learned District Judge, Solan, and the appeal was allowed by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Additional District Judge erred in holding that he had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal, as the appeal should have been decided in accordance with the provisions of Section 163 of the Act. The court set aside the judgment and decree of the learned first Appellate Court and remanded the case back for rehearing.
Issues: The main issue was whether the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge was against the provisions of Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, which clearly outlined the procedure for appeal and the jurisdiction of the District Judge in such cases.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the learned first Appellate Court were set aside, and the case was remanded back to the learned Additional District Judge for rehearing.
K.C. Sood, J.
1. Heard.
2. Admit on the following substantial question of law:
Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, Camp at Nalagarh, dated 6th October, 2005 is against the provisions of Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act?
3. Heard Mr. Gautam, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Chaudhary, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents.
4. It appears eviction proceedings against the appellant were initiated by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nalagarh, District Solan, from the land in dispute, which measures 1-19 bighas. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade vide his impugned orders dated 31st March, 2002 directed eviction of the appellant from the land in question. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade decided this case as Civil Suit in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", as the plaintiff had raised question of title and adverse possession over the land in dispute.
The Assistant Collector vide his impugned judgment held that the appellant was an encroacher and has not been able to prove his adverse possession over the suit land.
5. Dis-satisfied, the appellant laid an appeal before the learned District Judge, Solan, which came to be decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, camp at Nalagarh.
6. Mr. Gautam, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Appellate Court erred in law in holding that the order passed by the Assistant Collector could not be challenged before the learned District Judge by filing an appeal and the appeal was not maintainable. Section 163 of the Act reads :
163. Prevention of encroachment on lands.(I) Where Government land or land which has been reserved for the site of a village or for the common purposes of the co-sharers therein has been encroached upon by any co-sharer or other person for any purpose including construction of a building or other structure therein, then
(a) the Revenue Officer may of his own motion or on the application of any other co-sharer eject the encroaching person (hereinafter in this Section referred to as the encroacher) from such land and by order, proclaimed in the manner, mentioned in Section 23, prohibit repetition of the encroachment therein :
Provided that no encroacher shall be ejected under this clause unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the ejectment.
(b) the Revenue Officer may, having regard to such principles of assessment of damages as may be prescribed, assess the damage on account of such encroachment and may, by order, require the encroacher to pay the damages within such period and in such installments as may be specified in the order;
(c) if the encroacher has erected only building or other structure or has grown crops or planted trees on the encroached land it shall be competent for the Revenue Officer, while ordering his ejectment, to dismantle such building or other structure and confiscate any produce or other material on such land and put the same in public auction and deposit the sale proceeds thereof into the Government Treasury; and
(d) the Revenue Officer may impose upon the encroacher a fine up to (one thousand rupees per bigha or part thereof in the case of first encroachment) and, where the encroachments repeated, a fine up to (two thousand rupees per bigha or part thereof for each such subsequent encroachment).
(2) Any amount payable as damages under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) or as fine under Clause (d) of that Sub-section may be recovered in the same manner or arrears of land revenue.
(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
