STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. BAGSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Pistrict Judge, Bilaspur in civil Appeal No.4 of 2000/93.

(2.) The case of the petitioner -State before this court is that proceedings were initiated against respondent Bagshi Ram under the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The allegation of the State was that the respondent was in unauthorised possession and occupation of the land comprising Khasra No.1081/1055/1 admeasuring 0 -1 Biswa situated at village Bhadraun, Pargana Sariun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur and, hence, he was liable to be evicted. He was, therefore, asked to vacate the land by handing over possession to the State, as he was encroacher. The Assistant collector 1st Grade, Ghumarwin, in Case No.66/13 passed an order on 22nd February, 1992 under Section 163 of the Act holding that the respondent was an encroacher and, as such, he was liable to be evicted. It was observed in the order that though it was contended on behalf of the encroacher that he was in possession and his possession was very old, he failed to produce any evidence in that regard showing his possession to be very old. Accordingly, in the opinion of the Assistant Collector, the question of title did not arise. He, therefore, passed an order of eviction as also directed the encroacher -respondent pay a fine of Rs.500A. he further observed that in case the respondent would fail to vacate the land, a warrant of ejectment would be issued for his eviction.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector, the respondent appears to have filed an appeal under Section 14 of the Act before the Collector, Sub -Division, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, being Revenue Appeal No.38/2 of 1992. The Collector, after considering the contentions of the respondent (appellant before the Appellate Authority), dismissed the appeal by an order dated 24th June, 1993. Before the Appellate Authority, it was contednded that the appellant was in lawful possession; that he had also constructed a house on the land and that he could not have been evicted. It was also submitted that no reasonable opportunity of cross -examination was extended to the appellant by the Assistant collector and the order was liable to be quashed and set aside. It was further submitted that when the appellant claimed adverse possession, the order could not have been passed by describing him as an encroacher and the Assistant Collector ought to have converted himself into a Civil court and ought t have followed the procedure of a suit. In that connection, reliance was placed on decisions of this Court. The collector, however, negatived all the contentions and dismissed the appeal.