2024:HHC:15705 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.168 of 2024 Reserved on: 19.12.2024 Decided on: 23.12.2024 Manorama Devi ...Appellant Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No.

For the appellant: Mr. Narender Guleria and Mr. Lovneesh Thakur, Advocates.

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocates General and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge By way of this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has assailed judgment dated 22^nd April, 2024, passed by the learned writ Court in CWP No.3217 of 2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the appeal are that respondent No.3 initiated proceedings under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act (for short, the Act”)

and issued show cause notice dated 21.09.2017 seeking explanation as to why the appellant be not ejected from the encroached land shown as Khasra No.229/1, measuring 0-1-8 bigha, Khasra No.2, measuring 0-0-8 bigha, Khasra No.233/1 measuring 0-01-0 bigha and Khasra No.234 measuring 0-08-14 bigha, total measuring 0-11-17 bigha, situated in village Fegdu- Bajihan. The appellant filed a reply claiming the said land to be in her open, continuous and hostile possession since 1972 and to have perfected her title since the year 2002. In addition, the appellant also made an averment that she had applied for regularization of said land to the competent authority in the year

2002 vide File No.9 dated 15.07.2002.

3. Respondent No.3 concluded the proceedings under Section 163 of the Act vide order dated 05.11.2018, holding the appellant to be encroacher on the aforesaid land. Accordingly, the appellant was ordered to be ejected from the encroached land and was directed to pay penalty of Rs.3,95,846/-. The appellant assailed the order passed of respondent No.3 in appeal before the Sub Divisional Collector, Sundernagar, District Mandi, by invoking the provision of Section 14 of the Act. The appellant remained unsuccessful and she further invoked the jurisdiction of Commissioner, Mandi Division at Mandi under Section 17 of the Act. The Commissioner Mandi Division accepted the revision petition and recommended to the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh, the case of the appellant to be remanded to respondent No.3 for adjudication afresh on the question of adverse possession raised by the appellant. The Finance Commissioner(Appeals), however, did not accept the recommendation of the Commissioner, Mandi Division and dismissed the revision petition of the appellant being Revision Petition No.40/2022 vide impugned order dated 14.12.2023.

4. The appellant thereafter approached the writ Court by way of CWP No.3217 of 2024. The learned Single Judge of this Court did not find merits in the petition of the appellant and dismissed the same vide impugned judgment.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that respondent No.3 was under legal obligation to convert himself into Civil Court, once the appellant had raised the plea of having perfected the title over the alleged encroached land by way of adverse possession. He made reference to the provisions of sub sections (3) to (6) of Section 163 of the Act to support his contention. He further placed reliance on a judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.1 of 2001 decided on 15.03.2007, titled Shameem Begum @ Shameen Akhtar vs. State of H.P. & others, reported in Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 614 and another judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 03.03.2023 in CWP No.2274 of 2022, titled Amin Chand vs. State of Himachal P