The main legal point established in the judgment is that encroachment on government land, failure to provide substantial evidence of adverse possession, and a history of encroachment can lead to the dismissal of a revision petition and the upholding of ejectment orders.

ORDER :

1. The revision petition preferred under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against the order dated 16.12.2010, passed by the Id Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, in Revision No.292/2010, whereby the ejectment orders passed by all the Courts below have been upheld.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on a report dated 16.6.2004 of Patwari Chopal, duly verified by the Field Kanungos on 21 9.2016. The A C.1st Grade, Chopal initiated proceedings under section 163, against the present petitioner Shri Rajesh Kumar for encroaching upon the Government land comprised in khasra no.79/2,area measuring 0-14 bighas, situated in Mauza Bodhana, Pargna Chanju, Tehsil Chopal, Distt Shimla, by planting 15 apple plants. During the course of pendency of the case, the area came under settlement operation, therefore a report was also called for from the settlement field agencies, who reported that Shri Rajesh Kumar, present petitioner has encroached upon land bearing old khasra no.79/2, as well as some part of khasra no.80,which have been denoted as new khasra no.739,measuring 0-14-82 hect. After affording an opportunity of being heard to Shri Rajesh Kumar, the A C.1st Grade Chopal vide order dated 11.6.2009, in case no. 16/04 ordered ejectment of the present petitioner under section 163 of the Act, from the land comprised in khasra no.739, measuring 0-14-82 hect. situated in Up-Mahal, Jaigarh, Mauza Bodhanna, Tehsil Chopal.

3. Feeling aggrieved with the ejectment order of the A C. 1st grade, Chopal, the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, Sub-Division, Chopal on the grounds that proper procedure was not adopted and that the appellant is in peaceful and hostile possession over the suit land, that the impugned orders are not based on any evidence such as demarcation report etc. and the appellant has been condemned unheard. After affording an opportunity of being, heard and on perusal of the record, the Id. Collector vide order dated 06.03.2010, passed incase no. 02/10,dismissed the appeal upholding the ejectment order dated 11.6.2009,passed by the A C 1st Grade.

4. Therefore, the present petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Shimla Division, on the grounds that both the courts below have referred to different khasra nos That the show cause notice was with respect to khasra no.79/2 while ejectment order is with respect to khasra no.80, that the petitioner is owner in possession of khasra no.81 and keeping in view the provision i of Chapter 10.10 of the H P Land Record Manual, demarcation should have been done by the Revenue Officer of not less than the rank of A.C.Ist Grade; that while the alleged encroachment was shown initially at 0-14 biswas, the eviction order has been passed of 0-14-82 hect., which is more than 2 bighas of land. The Id. Commissioner, after hearing the parties and on going through the records, rejected the revision petition no 292/2010, vive the impugned order dated 16.12.2010.

5. Hence, the second revision petition on grounds similar as were taken before the courts below.

6. I have heard the Id Counsel for both the parties. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds of the revision petition, has laid emphasis on the issue that no demarcation was conducted in the presence of the petitioner, by the competent authority as the land owned by the petitioner bearing khasra no.81 is adjacent to the land purported to have been of the State of H.P. Further, that the possession of the petitioner over the suit land is very old and thus a question of title is involved in the matter which has not been decided by the A C. 1st Grade in a capacity of Civil Court, as per mandate of section 163(3) of the Act, hence, the orders passed by the trial court as well as the appellate and revisional authorities are illegal and without jurisdiction and thus liable to be set aside, by allowing the present rev