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.

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