PREHLAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record.

(2.) THE appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kalpa in the proceedings, under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, thereby ordering the eviction of the plaintiff- appellant from land measuring 0-17-50 Hectare, bearing khasra No. 535/2, was illegal and without jurisdiction and hence not binding upon the plaintiff and that pursuant to that order he was not liable to be evicted from the aforesaid land. It was pleaded by the appellant- plaintiff that he had been in possession of the above described land since times immemorial and had planted apple trees on this land and that when he was served with a notice of proceedings, under Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act, he appeared before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kalpa and took the plea that he was in adverse possession, but in spite of such a plea having been raised by him the Assistant Collector Ist Grade did not follow the procedure for trial of a civil suit in accordance with the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, and hence, the proceedings conducted and the order passed in those proceedings by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, were illegal and without jurisdiction.

(3.) NOW the appellant- plaintiff has come to this court. The only question that has been raised by the counsel for the plaintiff- appellant is that the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade is without jurisdiction, because when the plea of adverse possession had been raised, the Assistant Collector had no alternative but to proceed to try the matter in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, for the trial of a suit and to have passed a decree.