Failure to follow statutory procedure invalidates eviction orders under the H.P. Land Revenue Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 15955 of 2025 Decided on : 10.10.2025 Naresh Kumar and another …Petitioners Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioners : Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral CMP No. 24658 of 2025 This application is disposed of by taking on record H the documents appended therewith.

CWP No. 15955 of 2025

2. Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. With the consent of the parties, this petition is being

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

disposed of at this stage itself.

4. The petitioners herein, are aggrieved by order dated 24.03.2023, passed by learned Assistant Collector, 2^nd Grade, Salooni, H.P, in terms whereof, the petitioners were ordered to be evicted under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), from the Government land comprised in Khasra No. 826/3 and order dated 29.04.2024, passed by learned Collector, Sub Division Salooni, District Chamba, H.P, in uterms whereof, order dated 24.03.2023 was upheld by theo learned Collector.

5. CLearned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders, inter alia, are not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that despite the fact that the plea of adverse possession was taken by the petitioners in the reply filed to the proceedings initiated against them under Section 163 of the Act, the Authority concerned did not follow the procedure laid down in Sub-Section (3) of Section 163 of the Act. On this count, he submitted that the entire proceedings stand vitiated.

6. A perusal of the reply filed to the proceedings under Section 163 of the Act, demonstrates that a specific stand was taken therein by the respondents that the possession over the land was since the time of his forefather and the petitioners had become the owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession.

7. That being the case, obviously the matter was to be decided by the Authorities by following the procedure laid down in Sub-Section (3) of Section 163 of the Act, which, inter alia, provides that the uCourt had to convert itself into a Civil Court and decide othe matter accordingly. This admittedly was not done iCn the present case.

8. In fact, the order passed by the first Authority, which is at Page No.18 of the paper book, demonstrates that the same had been passed by Assistant Collector, 2^nd Grade. In terms of the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 163 of the Act, once the plea of adverse possession is taken by the present petitioners therein, the order could have been passed only by Assistant Collector, 1^st Grade and that also after converting itself into a Civil Court. That not having been done by the Authority concerned, order dated 24.03.2023 is vitiated per se and is void ab initio. The subsequent order passed by the Authority also is not sustainable in the eyes of law. On this short count, this petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. Order dated 24.03.2023, passed by learned Assistant Collector, 2^nd Grade, Salooni, H.P and order dated 29.04.2024, passed by learned Collector, Sub Division Salooni, District Chamba, H.P, are quashed and set aside.

9. At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that asu the petition is being allowed on a technical ground, theo Authority be allowed to proceed against the petitionCers from the stage of filing of the reply to the proceedings under Section 163 of the Act.

10. The peti