CHAMARU RAM Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 10-7-2001 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh whereby his appeal was dismissed and the order dated 14-5- 1999 passed by the Collector exercising the powers under the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') was affirmed. By the order dated 14-5-1999 the Collector had passed the order of eviction of the petitioner from the public premises Khasra Numbers 647/637/621/1, 647/637/624/2 and 647/637/624/3 measuring 5-5-4 Bighas in Muhal/Forest N. DPF, Satyogi, Teh. Chachiot, Distt. Mandi, H.P.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General and going through the record, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders of eviction. The only point for consideration is the effect of non-consideration of the claim of the petitioner by the Authorities below that he has become owner by way of adverse possession of the premises in dispute. As per the petitioner, he has been in possession of the premises in dispute for the last 35 years and he had constructed a house over a portion of it to the knowledge of the respondents in the year 1965. We find that in his statement before the Collector as well as in the grounds of appeal before the Commissioner the petitioner did raise this point that he has been in possession of the land since long. Even the Forest Guard, Incharge, Kotlu Beat in his statement before the Collector had admitted that 22/23 years ago, the petitioner had started cultivation over the land measuring 5-0-4 Bighas and constructed slate roofed house on the land measuring 0-2-10 Bighas and cowshed on land measuring 0-2-10 Bighas.

(3.) THEREFORE , the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that either the matter may be remanded to the Collector to adjudicate upon the claim of title of the petitioner or some time may be given to the petitioner to file civil suit in the Civil Court for getting his claim of title settled. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General has supported the orders of the Authorities below and has argued that being in unauthorized possession of the premises in dispute the order of eviction of the petitioner may be affirmed and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.