Back
2023 Supreme(HP) 90
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SABINA, SATYEN VAIDYA, JJ.
Sh. Amin Chand - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
CWP No. 2274 of 2022
Decided on : 03-03-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Adv
Point of Law: There is no hesitation to hold that the said authority has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law.
Headnote:
Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 - Section 163 - Land - Order of ejectment - order of eviction - The mandate of sub-Sections 3 to 6 of Section 163 of the Act, is imperative. Though, for adjudicating the plea of adverse possession, discretion is vested with the Assistant Collector 1st Grade either to convert itself as a Civil Court or to decide it otherwise, nonetheless, the discretion so vested is judicial discretion and cannot be exercised capriciously. The said authority exercises quasi-judicial functions under section 163 of the Act, therefore, discretion mandatorily is required to be exercised objectively. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade has to elaborate reasons, in case he decides against option to convert itself to a Civil Court(Para 9).
Finding of Court :
Orders passed by appellate and revisional authorities also suffer from illegality, in as much as, all such authorities have ignored the illegal omission committed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade - Appellate authority rejected the contention of appellant/petitioner herein, raised in this regard, on ground that the appellant/petitioner herein, had been proceeded against ex-parte - Reason, so assigned, by appellate authority, is not legally sustainable for reason that Assistant Collector 1st Grade is bound to comply with sub-Section 3 of Section 163 of Act, when plea of adverse possession is raised before it - Fact that the noticee under Section 163 of Act, had been proceeded against ex parte after raising such plea, does not absolve the authority from performing its legal obligation - Commissioner, Mandi Division, vide impugned order, Annexure P-3, in aforesaid circumstances, clearly erred in holding that petitioner herein, had failed to show, at what time, his possession become adverse to the true owner and how that was of a hostile nature - Such finding returned by first revisional authority is clearly illegal, as petitioner herein, had no chance to prove his contention.
Result : Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Petitioner is facing ejectment from land comprised in Khasra No. 979/1, measuring 0-13 Marlas, owned by State Government in Tika Badhdhar, Mauja Chabutra, Tehsil Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P.
2. Petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from aforesaid land, vide order, Annexure P-1, dated 23.03.2011, passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., in proceedings under Section 163 of The Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (for short ‘The Act’). The order of ejectment passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sujanpur, has been upheld by appellate as well as revisional authorities.
3. Sub Divisional Collector, Hamirpur, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order Annexure P-2 dated 30.08.2011. Petitioner assailed the order of Sub Divisional Collector, Hamirpur, passed in appeal, before Commissioner, Mandi Division, by filing revision petition under Section 17 of the Act, but remained unsuccessful as his revision petition was dismissed on 11.09.2015 vide order Annexure P-3. Petitioner further approached Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh, by way of Revision Petition No. 125/2015, but again remained unsuccessful as the second revision petition of the petitioner was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), vide order dated 17.01.2022, Annexure P-4.
4. Petitioner has taken exception to the order of eviction passed against him by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sujanpur and affirmed as above, mainly on the ground that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sujanpur, had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him under law by not converting himself as a Civil Court to decide the question of adverse possession raised by the petitioner. As per petitioner, the appellate and revisional authorities have also erred in affirming the eviction order by ignoring the omission committed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sujanpur.
5. In reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been admitted that the petitioner had raised the plea of adverse possession before Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sujanpur. However, the order passed by the said authority and orders passed by the appellate and revisional authorities have been defended being legal and in accordance with law.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.
7. A copy of order of eviction dated 23.03.2011, passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sujanpur, has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. Its perusal reveals that Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sujanpur, had noticed the defence plea of adverse possession raised by the petitioner in his reply submitted to the show cause notice issued to him under Section 163 of the Act. It is also evident from the order dated 23.03.2011, passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sujanpur, that the petitioner herein, had been proceeded against ex parte on 07.03.2011.
8. Despite, having noticed aforesaid plea raised by the petitioner, Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sujanpur, proceeded to pass the order of eviction without showing compliance to the provisions of sub-Sections 3 to 6 of Section 163 of the Act, which read as under:-
“163:
(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 trial of an original suit by a civil court, and he shall record a judgment and decree containing the particulars required by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1
