JEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Jeet Singh has filed this revision petition under section 17 (3) of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act against the order dated 27 -10 -1987 of the Commissioner, Shimla Division.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are that the Assistant Engineer, H P. P. W. D, Kasumpati Sub -Division, filed a petition under sections 5 and 12 of the Himachal Pradesh Roadside Land Control Act before the Collector, Shimla Sub -Division, on 16 -7 -1985 stating that the petitioner, Shri Jeet Singh had encroached upon the land on the roadside at Kasumpati belonging to the Public Works Department. The petitioner was thereafter summoned by the Sub -Divisional Collector below and the proceedings under the Himachal Pradesh Roadside Land Control Act were initiated against him. The learned Sab -Divisional Collector, Shimla recorded the evidence of Halqa Patwari and the Junior Engineer, Kasumpati and found that the Himachal Pradesh Roadside Land Control Act was not applicable in the case The learned Sub -Divisional Collector inspected the spot himself and found that the petitioner had encroached upon the Government land comprised in Khasra No. 472/137, measuring one biswa situated in Kasumpati on the road side Thus he ordered his ejectment under section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act on 22 -7 -1987. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the Sub -Divisional Collector, Shri Jeet Singh filed an appeal under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act but the same was dismissed by the Commissioner, Shimla Division, on 27 -10 -1987. Now Shri Jeet Singh has come in revision before us.

(3.) We have gone through the record of this case very carefully and have also heard Shri H C. Sharma, Advocate, Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ravinder Sharma, District Attorney (Revenue), who appeared on behalf of the State. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Sub -Divisional Collector had no power to pass the ejectment order under section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act The proceedings under section 163 of the Act ibid have to be commence before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. The learned Commissioner, Shimla Division, took the view that the Sub -Divisional Collector is an officer senior in rank to an Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, by whom ordinarily cognizance of such cases is taken. He has expressed his opinion that no irregularity had been committed by the Sub -Divisional Collector in having tried this case himself, as long as he offered full opportunity to the encroacher. There is some force in the plea of the petitioner that the Sub -Divisional Collector (Rural), Shimla acted without jurisdiction in passing an order himself under section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. When a law requires a particular action to be initiated adjudicated upon by an officer of a particular grade, that ought to be done normally by an officer of that grade only. By passing an order under section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act by the Sub -Divisional Collector, the petitioner has been deprived of one opportunity of filing an appeal before the Collector. The proper course for the Sub -Divisional Collector was to send the case to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, for disposing the same in accordance with law instead of proceeding himself under section 63 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. As such, the revision petition is accepted and the case is remanded to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Shimla, for fresh decision in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to raise other pleas, which he has taken in the revision petition, before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. To be communicated. Revision accepted