SUBHADRA CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common question of law is involved in these three revision petitions, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The sum and substance of the facts leading to the presentation of these petitions are that proceedings for ejectment of the petitioners from the land allegedly encroached upon by them were initiated by the" concerned Assistant Collector under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act and they were ordered to be ejected from the land respectively encroached upon by them. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred appeals against the orders of ejectment in the Court of the learned District Judge, Shimla mainly on the ground that since the petitioners had raised the plea of title on the basis of adverse possession but the Assistant Collector concerned had failed to follow the procedure as provided by Section 163(3) and (4) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. All the three appeals were allowed by the learned District Judge and the cases were remanded to the concerned Assistant Collector 1st Grade with the directions to proceed to determine the plea of adverse possession as raised by the petitioners by following the procedure applicable to the trial of a suit by a Civil Court as per the provisions of Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act. By the imputed acts and conduct of the concerned Assistant Collector, the petitioners apprehend that they may not get justice, therefore, they applied for transfer of the cases in the Court of the learned District Judge, Shimla who dismissed such applications on the premises that the Assistant Collector cannot be deemed to be a Civil Court under the jurisdiction of the Court of the District Judge, therefore, he could not exercise the powers of transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code). Being aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present revision petitions.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2 and the learned Counsel for respondent No.3 and have also gone through the papers placed on the record.