Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Proceedings under Section 163 of the Himachal iPradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (the Act in short) were initiated against Smt. Dwarku Devi and her son-present petitioner. On 11.12.2017, respondent No.4-the Assistant Collector First Grade Nihiri, District Mandi, ordered their ejectment from the subject land, allegedly on the ground that petitioner and his late mother Dwarku Devi had encroached upon the Government land. While passing this order, respondent No.4 made reference to the statement of Smt. Dwarku Devi, wherein she statedly admitted having encroached the land, but with the assertion that it was her old possession and she will not remHove the so calledencroachment.

2. Appeal preferred by the Smt. Dwarku Devi and the petitioner against the order passed the Assistant Collector First Grade, Nihri, District Mandi, was dismissed by respondent No.3-uthe Sub Divisional Collector, Sundernagar, District Manodi on 25.08.2018 primarily on the ground that duringC demarcation, Smt. Dwarku Devi and her son were found to have encroached over the Government land. The orders have been affirmed by the Financial Commission,(Appeals), Himachal Pradesh on 17.12.2024.

3. Looking to the tone and tanner of the statement made by late Smt. Dwarku Devi, now represented by her son Sh. Om Prakash in this writ petition, learned Deputy Advocate General was directed to produce the record of the case. The record has been produced. On the basis of record, learned Deputy Advocate General made a fair statement that Smt. Dwarku Devi/ her son- present petitioner had not been given any opportunity to file reply to the notice issued to them under Section 163 of the Act; That her statement was straightway recorded, wherein she though admitted encroachment, but simultaneously defeHnded her action and asserted her right to retain the possession over the land onthe strength that her possession was an old one.

In the impugned order, respondent No.4-AssistantCollector First Grade has drawn adverse inference from the fact that Smt. uDwarku Devi had not claimed adverse possession oover the land. However, the case position is that Smt. CDwarku Devi and her son were not even given any opportunity to claim adverse possession over the land since they were never granted time to file reply to the proceedingsinitiated against them under the Act.

4. There has been admitted infraction of principles of natural justice in the instant case as the petitioner and his mother late Smt. Dwarku Devi have been denied the opportunity to defence themselves by filing reply to the case/ proceedings initiated against them under Section 163 of theAct. Accordingly, this petition is allowed, impugned orders passed by the Assistant Collector dated 11.12.2017, by the Sub Divisional Collector dated 25.08.2018 and by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P. dated 17.12.2024 are set aside. The matter is remanded to thHe Assistant Collector First Grade, Nihri, District Mandi for proceeding fresh in the matter in accordance with law by first giving opportunity of filing reply to the the petitioner to the proceedings initiated under Section 163 of the Himachal Land Revenue Act, 1954 against the petitioner/his mother Smt. Dwarku. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Nihri, District Mandi, on 23.06.2026. It is made clear that incase petitioner doesnremain present before the Assistant Collector First Grade, gNihri, District Mandi, on the given date, the Competent Authority shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, alsoto stand disposed of.