KEHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 15/9/XIV of 1996 whereby he has accepted the appeal filed by the respondent -State and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade.

(2.) The facts of the case make both, interesting and distressing reading. Proceedings under Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), were started against respondent Kehar Singh on the ground that he had encroached upon the land of the State Government comprised in Khasra No. 539/1, measuring 0 -01 -19 hectares. The respondent filed his objections and took up the plea that he had become owner of the land by way of adverse possession. Since the question had been raised whether the respondent had become owner of the land by way of adverse possession, the revenue officer handling the case was required to determine the question like a civil court. In this behalf it would be useful to quote Section 163(3) of the Act which reads as follows : - "Section 163(3). When there is a question as to title or to the adverse possession, wherein the possession is claimed by an encroacher for a period beyond thirty years in relation to the land from which ejectment is made or is to be made under this section, the Revenue Officer, not below the rank of an Assistant Collector of the First Grade, shall proceed to determine the question, as if he were a civil court and shall exercise all such powers as are exercisable by a civil Court."

(3.) In the present case a perusal of the record of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade shows that on 19th October, 1995 the objections were filed by Kehar Singh claiming that he had become owner by way of adverse possession. The Assistant Collector took note of the aforesaid provision of Section 163(3) of the Act and treated the objections filed by Kehar Singh as a plaint. Notice was issued to. Collector Kangra alongwith copy of the objections to file its written statement to the said objections. The case was adjourned to 16.11.1995 for filing reply. On 16th November, 1995, one Jagdish Ram, Office Kanungo, Jaisinghpur appeared on behalf of the respondent. He sought further time to file the reply. This request was accepted and the case was adjourned to 2nd December, 1995. On 2nd December, 1995 another date was sought and the case was adjourned to 2nd January, 1996 for filing of written statement. On this date also the State did not file any reply to the objections and at the request of Office Kanungo one last opportunity to file written statement was granted on the condition that no further date would be "granted. The case was adjourned to 16th January, 1996 for this purpose. On 16th January, 1996 also no reply was filed. The A.D.A., Palampur sent a letter No. ADA/PLA/95, dated 3rd December, 1995 which is on the file. In this letter, ADA had requested one more opportunity to file the reply. Another opportunity was granted and the case was adjourned to 1st February, 1996. On this date -also no reply was filed.