Authorities must follow statutory procedures under the H.P. Land Revenue Act when claims of adverse possession are made.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

Sh. Lalit Kumar, Senior Assistant, office of Sub Tehsil Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. is present in person in the Court with requisite record.

i2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-

“(i) For issuance of writ of certiorari or the nature thereof by quashing and setting aside the order dated 30/06/2025( Annexure P-4) passed by Patwari concerned, order dated 24- 03-2015 passed by the Ld. AC IInd Grade, Darlaghat in case No. 4/13- A OF 2014 and which was upheld vide order dated 22.8.2016 passed by Ld. Collector, Sub-Division, Arki, District Solan H.P. in an appeal titled as Brij Lal Vs. State of HP vide

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Case No. 06-XIII A of 2015 and affirmed by the Ld. Divisional Commissioner in case no 54/2021 vide orderH 03.06.2025.”

3. When this case was listed on 11.07.2025, the following order was passed by the Court:-

“Notice. Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Learrned Additional Advocate General to produce the record of the case before the Court on the next date as tohe only moot issue before the Court, as has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner, is whether the orders passed by the Authorities, are vitiated for the reason that in the light of the fact that the petitioner took the plea, when proceedings were initiated against him under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, that he had become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession, the Authorities were bound to have had followed the procedure laid down in Sub Section 3 of Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act.

List on 29.07.2025. In the meanwhile, operation of the impugned order shall also remain stayed.”

4. Today, learned Deputy Advocate General has made available the original record of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act for the perusal of the Court. A perusal of the record demonstrates that in the reply that was filed by the petitioner to the notice issued under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, he had taken the stand of his having perfected his title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. As the reply is short, the same is quoted herein below:-

“1. That the ejectment Proceeding initiated against the respondent U/S 163 (1) of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act is not maintainable before this court as question of title is involved rin the present proceeding and in those matters where question of title is involved, only AC.Ist grade is competoent to decide the matter in the capacity of civil court. 2. That the matter involved in the present proceeding cannot be decided in summary manner.

3. That allegation made in the notice are incorrect and contrary to the factual position on the spot. Court Yard.cow shed and toilets/privies of the respondent are existing over the above said land, since 15th April, 1958 as the same were constructed by the father of the respondent. The respondent through his predecessor of the expert which will clinch out the controversy Proceeding against the respondent has been initiated at the instance of some vested interested persons who are inimical to the respondent and wrong report of encroachment has been prepared and submitted by the field revenue staff against the respondent. The respondent has become owner in possession of the land mentioned in the notice by way of adverse possession which have matured into the ownership by afflux of time. In view of the facts and circumstances, proceeding initiated against the respondent is liable to be dropped.” H

5. Yet, despite the fact that the petitioner took the plea that he had perfected his title over the suit land b