The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain suits related to ejectment proceedings under section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, and the revenue authority can convert itself into a Civil Court for the determination of issues related to adverse possession or title only under specific circumstances.

Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.5.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17-N/14 of 2009.

2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this revision petition are that Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Nahan initiated proceedings under section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for brevity sake) against the petitioner on the report of Patwari Halqua that he has raised construction on the suit land comprised in khasra No.349/1 measuring 0-1 bigha situated in Mauza Banethi, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur. Petitioner filed a reply before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. He took a preliminary objection that he has no jurisdiction since question of title was involved and he was required to convert himself into a Civil Court for determination of the question. According to him, his possession was for more than 30 years and he had become owner by way of adverse possession. Ejectment orders were passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 27.9.2005. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Collector, Nahan. He dismissed the same on 28.8.2006. Thereafter, revision was preferred before the Divisional Commissioner. He dismissed the same on 19.6.2008. He challenged these orders by way of Civil Suit No. 153/1 of 2008. According to him, the procedure prescribed under section 163 of the Act has not been followed and he has become owner by way of adverse possession and the respondent was threatening to interfere with his possession.

3. Written statement was filed by the respondent. Preliminary objection was raised with regard to lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. On the basis of the pleadings, this issue was ordered to be treated as preliminary issue vide order dated 11.8.2009. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) after taking into consideration the various judgments of this Court held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear and entertain the suit filed by the petitioner vide order dated 14.9.2009. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Sirmaur. He dismissed the same on 31.5.2010

4. Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate appearing vice counsel on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously argued that in this case both the courts below have erred in law by coming to conclusion that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction once the proceedings had been initiated under section 163 of the Act.

5. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has supported the orders passed by both the courts below.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.

7. The ejectment proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. He filed reply to the same. He has taken objection that he has become owner by way of adverse possession and since the question of title was involved, the Court was required to convert itself into Civil Court and the decree was required to be passed. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade passed the order of ejectment on 27.9.2005, which was upheld by the Sub Divisional Collector, Nahan on 28.8.2006 and by the Divisional Commissioner on 19.6.2008. The learned Additional District Judge has correctly applied the ratio of judgments reported in 2001 (3) Shim.L.C. 395, 2002 (1) Shim. L.C. 124 and 2003 (1) Cur. L.J. (H.P.) 314 while coming to the conclusion that Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of exclusion of section 171 of the Act once the proceedings have been initiated under section 163 of the Act. In the instant case, the hierarchy provided under the Act has passed the orders on 27.9.2005, 28.8.2006 and 19.6.2008. Section 163 of the Act is a complete code in itself the manner in which the ejectment proceedings have to be initiated and in what circumstances the revenue authority can convert itself into Civil Court for the determination