Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
Parma Nand – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| 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 Collecto
Amended Section 163(3) grants revenue officer discretion ('may') to act as civil court on adverse possession plea; mere unsubstantiated assertion without evidence does not mandate conversion.
The failure to afford a hearing in administrative proceedings undermines the validity of the actions taken, emphasizing the necessity of natural justice.
Continuous possession alone does not establish ownership; the rights in land vested in State, and compensation is not a pre-condition for possession transfer.
The court emphasized the necessity for factual determination before issuing a writ of mandamus for demarcation or measurement, and declined to interfere in the absence of such determination.
Adverse possession requires proof of open, continuous, and hostile possession with the necessary animus, which the petitioner failed to establish.
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
