Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rajiv Sharma, J.
Sh. Pyare Lal - Appellant/plaintiff.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent/defendant.
R.S.A. No. : 259 of 2002
Decided on : 24.09.2012
LAND REVENUE ACT - SECTION 163 - ADVERSE POSSESSION - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - OUSTER CLAUSE - INTERIM ORDERS - NEUTRALIZATION - MESNE PROFITS - PENAL AND EXEMPLARY COSTS - REVENUE OFFICERS - DIRECTIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction claiming that he was in possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 1352/2 from the time of his ancestors and he has also raised an apple orchard on the suit land. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff being in adverse possession of the suit land for more than 30 years, i.e., from the time of his ancestors, has become owner in possession and the order passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Rohru, dated 20th October, 1998 in case No. 90 of 1992 and thereafter, dismissal of appeal by the Sub Divisional Collector, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. vide order, dated 25.08.1999, were illegal. According to the plaintiff, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade ought to have decided the matter after converting himself into Civil Court. According to the plaintiff, even the report of the Patwari was not qua the suit land, but it was qua other land, whereas the orders have been passed qua the suit land.
Finding of the Court:
The proceedings were initiated against the plaintiff under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, on the basis of Ex. DW-1/A. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the plaintiff under Section 163 of the Act by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Rohru. Plaintiff submitted reply to the same vide Ex. PW-1/E. Thereafter, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade has passed an order of eviction against the plaintiff on 20.10.1998. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Rohru has taken into consideration all the pleas raised by the plaintiff before him. Plaintiff has alleged before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade that his forefathers were in possession of the suit land and thereafter, he was in possession of the suit land for the last 30-35 years. The age of the plaintiff when he made the statement before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade was 43 years. This aspect has also been taken into consideration by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. Thus, even according to the plaintiff, he was 10-15 years old when he came in possession of the suit land. Learned Assistant Collector, 1st Grade has also pointed out that in case the plaintiff has encroached upon the suit land, an entry to this effect should have been carried out in the recent settlement operation. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade has also taken into consideration the revenue entries placed on record, whereby the ownership of the State has been shown. The plaintiff has preferred an appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, dated 25.08.1999, before the Sub Divisional Collector, Rohru, District, Shimla H.P. The Sub Divisional Collector, Rohru has dismissed the appeal after taking into consideration all the pleas raised by the plaintiff, including the adverse possession on 25.08.1999. The plaintiff has preferred a Civil Suit, claiming that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Rohru, dated 20.10.1998 and Sub Divisional Collector, Rohru, District, Shimla, H.P., dated 25.08.1999 were in violation of Section 163 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Revenue Authorities having failed to exercise the jurisdiction in accordance with the prescribed procedure, therefore, Civil Court is competent to try the suit and to declare the proceedings un-lawful? 2. Whether the plea of adverse possession having been raised before the Revenue Courts was required to be decided by them and on their failure to do so, jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred?
Ratio Decidendi: The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted in matters falling within the jurisdiction of Revenue Officers. Sub-section (2)(xxv) of Section 171 of the Act provides that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted. Thus, both the Courts below have come to the right conclusion that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. Merely if the procedure has not been followed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, though in the present case it has been followed, it cannot be held that the Civil Court acquire the jurisdiction to try suit, inspite of the specific bar in terms of Section 171(2) (xxv) of the Revenue Act.
Final Decision: The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. The plaintiff is directed to pay a sum of ₹5 lacs to the State Government within a period of six weeks from today. In case the amount is not deposited, the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla is directed to recover the same by way of arrears of land revenue. All the Revenue Officers in the State of Himachal Pradesh are directed that while passing the orders of eviction, they must take steps for neutralizing the interim orders by awarding compensation, mesne profits and exemplary/penal costs.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
Jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred in matters falling within the jurisdiction of Revenue Officers, especially under specific provisions of the Land Revenue Act, which contain ouster clauses (!) (!) .
Proceedings initiated under Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act are meant to be concluded within the Revenue Department's framework. If the prescribed procedure is followed, the Civil Court's jurisdiction to interfere is limited and generally barred (!) (!) .
The plea of adverse possession raised before Revenue Courts must be decided by those authorities. Failure to do so does not automatically confer jurisdiction on Civil Courts, particularly when the law explicitly excludes such jurisdiction (!) (!) .
If the Revenue Authorities follow the correct procedures, including proper settlement and recording of possession, their orders are binding, and interference by Civil Courts is not permissible (!) .
The law prescribes a specific period (e.g., thirty years) for establishing adverse possession, and claims based on adverse possession against the government require clear and categorical proof, including continuous, open, hostile, and actual possession (!) (!) (!) .
The principle that civil courts cannot entertain suits challenging proceedings under Revenue Acts applies even if procedural irregularities occur, provided the law explicitly ousts jurisdiction (!) (!) .
The doctrine of restitution and neutralization of benefits gained through unlawful or improper proceedings is recognized. Courts have the power to order costs, damages, and costs to prevent unjust enrichment or abuse of process (!) (!) (!) .
Benefits obtained through interim orders or proceedings that are ultimately found to be unjust or wrongful should be neutralized, including ordering costs or interest to prevent unjust enrichment (!) (!) .
The courts are tasked with discouraging frivolous or dishonest litigation by imposing costs, penal measures, and ensuring that legal process is not abused for illegal gains or prolongation of disputes (!) (!) (!) .
In cases involving land or property disputes, especially against the government, establishing title or possession for the legally prescribed period (e.g., thirty years) is essential, and mere entries or temporary use are insufficient to prove adverse possession (!) (!) .
The law emphasizes the importance of following the statutory procedures and the finality of proceedings within the Revenue Department, discouraging parties from re-litigating through Civil Courts (!) .
When wrongful possession or illegal encroachment is proven, the appropriate remedy includes eviction, compensation for use (mesne profits), and costs for wrongful occupation, with the Court exercising its inherent powers to ensure justice (!) (!) (!) .
The legal framework provides for the neutralization of unjust benefits gained through improper or delayed proceedings, including interim orders, to uphold justice and prevent abuse of the legal process (!) (!) (!) .
The Court may impose costs and penalties on parties who abuse the legal process or perpetuate illegalities, including costs to compensate the rightful owner or the State for wrongful gains (!) (!) .
The overall approach mandates that disputes concerning land, especially those involving government land or revenue proceedings, should be resolved within the specialized Revenue Department framework, with Civil Courts exercising limited jurisdiction (!) .
Please let me know if you need further assistance or specific legal advice based on these points.
Rajiv Sharma, Judge:
This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 16.04.2002, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 96-S/13 of 2001.
2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal, are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff” for the sake of convenience) has filed a suit for declaration and injunction by claiming that he was in possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 1352/2 from the time of his ancestors and he has also raised an apple orchard on the suit land. It has also been pleaded that the plaintiff being in adverse possession of the suit land for more than 30 years, i.e., from the time of his ancestors, has become owner in possession and the order passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Rohru, dated 20th October, 1998 in case No. 90 of 1992 and thereafter, dismissal of appeal by the Sub Divisional Collector, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. vide order, dated 25.08.1999, were illegal. According to the plaintiff, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade ought to have decided the matter after converting himself into Civil Court. According to the plaintiff, even the report of the Patwari was not qua the suit land, but it was qua other land, whereas the orders have been passed qua the suit land.
3. The suit was contested by the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant” for the sake of convenience). According to the defendant, the possession of the plaintiff was recent and he has not become owner by way of adverse possession. On receipt of information that the defendant has encroached upon the suit land, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade proceeded with under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of brevity) and found that the encroachment is fresh and no title by way of adverse possession has been acquired by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was ordered to be evicted. It was also specifically pleaded by the defendant that in case the possession was old, the same ought to have been shown in the settlement proceedings, but in the settlement proceedings, the defendant has been entered to be owner in possession of the suit land. The defendant has also supported the order passed by the S.D.O. (Civil) affirming the order of A.C. 1st Grade, dated 20.10.1998. The defendant has also taken a specific plea regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
4. Learned trial Court framed the issues and dismissed the suit on 09.07.2001. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla. The same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 16.04.2002. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal.
5. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 24.07.2002:
“1. Whether the Revenue Authorities having failed to exercise the jurisdiction in accordance with the prescribed procedure, therefore, Civil Court is competent to try the suit and to declare the proceedings un-lawful?
2. Whether the plea of adverse possession having been raised before the Revenue Courts was required to be decided by them and on their failure to do so, jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred?
6. Mr. Romesh Verma, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that once the plea of adverse possession was raised by the plaintiff, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade was required to convert himself into Civil Court, as provided under Section 163 of the Act. He further contended that since the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Rohru, dated 20.10.1998 and Sub Divisional Collector, Rohru, dated 25.08.1999 were illegal, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to decide the matter.
7. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings care
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
