Back
2026 Supreme(HP) 209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA , J.
Parma Nand - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. Respondents
CWP No.3122 of 2026
Decided on : 17-03-2026
Important Points
Subject
Land Law - Encroachment and Ejectment
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Demarcation procedure - Field Kanungo competent to conduct under instructions authorizing deputation by Assistant Collector of either grade, in presence of parties - Fresh demarcation pursuant to appellate directions, after affording opportunity, held valid and in accordance with law notwithstanding objections to officer's rank. (Paras 3(ii), 3(i))
Facts of the case:
Proceedings under Section 163 initiated upon demarcation alleging encroachment on government land. Ejectment ordered by Assistant Collector First Grade on finding lack of evidence for possession claim and proof of unauthorized occupation, affirmed concurrently by appellate and revisional authorities after fresh demarcation in presence of petitioner.
Findings of Court:
Petitioner produced no credible evidence of continuous possession beyond thirty years despite opportunities; demarcation lawful; no basis for revenue officer to exercise discretion converting proceedings into civil court; ejectment orders legally sound.
Issues: Whether revenue officer mandatorily required to convert into civil court upon adverse possession plea; validity of demarcation by delegated officer; legality of concurrent ejectment orders.
Ratio Decidendi: Post-amendment Section 163(3) confers judicial discretion on revenue officer to act as civil court only if plea of adverse possession or title effectively raised with substance in pleadings and evidence; standalone assertion insufficient to compel conversion or vitiate proceedings absent prejudice.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
For the Petitioner:Mr. H. S. Rangra, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. L. N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ejectment initiated under s.163 after demarcation showing government land encroachment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. amended s.163(3) 'may' confers judicial discretion; bare plea inadequate. (Para 4) |
| 3. writ petition dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.
Proceedings under Section 163 of the HIMACHAL PRADESH LAND REVENUE ACT , 1954 (the Act in short) were initiated against the petitioner. The Assistant Collector First Grade, on 16.01.2018, ordered ejectment of the petitioner from the land in question. Petitioner’s appeal against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Collector on 20.08.2019. Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi [exercising powers of Financial Commissioner (Appeals)] on 29.03.2025.
The above concurrent orders passed against the petitioner by three revenue authorities below ordering his ejectment from the land has led the petitioner to institute present writ petition.
2. On the basis of a demarcation carried out by revenue officer on 30.01.2016, a notice under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 was issued to the petitioner by Assistant Collector First Grade, Karsog, District Mandi on 21.04.2016, alleging that he had encroached upon Government land comprised in: -
(i) Khasra No. 596/542/1 measuring 00-00-16 bighas; and
(ii) Khasra No.596/542/2 measuring 00-04-00 bighas, in Mohal Alsindi, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P.
Petitioner in his response to the notice, pleaded that construction over the land in question was raised by his late grandfather about 60 years ago; The land even if owned by the State, had been coming in possession of petitioner’s family over the years. Petitioner’s possession over the land was continuous, uninterrupted, peaceful and had ripened into adverse possession.
Petitioner also alleged that demarcation of the land had neither been carried out by the Competent Authority nor in accordance with prescribed procedure. According to the petitioner, demarcation could not have been conducted by a revenue officer below the rank of Assistant Collector First Grade, whereas, in the instant case, Field Kanungo, had demarcated the land and further three ‘pucca’ triangle points had not been fixed.
3(i) Assistant Collector First Grade vide his order dated 16.01.2018 (Annexure P-4), held that:- Petitioner had not been able to produce any substantive evidence in support of his plea of being in possession over the land in question for more than sixty years; The evidence led by the State had proved petitioner’s unauthorized and illegal possession over the Government land. It was further held that demarcation was conducted as per law and Field Kanungo had been authorized to give land demarcation under general instructions issued on 13.09.2012 by the Principal Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner was accordingly ordered to be evicted from the land.
3(ii) Before the Appellate Authority i.e. Sub Divisional Collector Karsog, District Mandi, the main focus of the petitioner was around demarcation of the land carried out by the Field Kanungo. According to the petitioner, demarcation could not be carried out by a revenue officer below the rank of Assistant Collector Second Grade, whereas, in the instant case, it was the Field Kanungo, who demarcated the land. This according to the petitioner vitiated the entire proceedings initiated by the respondents under Section 163 of the Act.
The Sub Divisional Collector rejected petitioner’s contention in relation to competence of the Field Kanungo to demarcate the land. By placing reliance upon State instructions dated 16.07.2012/ 13.09.2012 which authorized the Revenue Officer concerned (Assistant Collector of either grade) to direct the Field Kanungo or a consultant to carry out demarcation of the land in presence of necessary parties, it was held that Field Kanungo was competent to give demarcation of the land. A pe
