SITA LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Himachal Pradesh initiated proceedings for eviction of the present appellant under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The case of the State was that khasra No.31 is a demarcated protected forest and the appellant had encroached upon the property belonging to the State. The appellant contested these proceedings and from the perusal of the orders of the various revenue authorities it is apparent that the appellant raised a plea that he had been in possession of the suit property since long and was not liable to be ejected therefrom. Though the reply filed by the present appellant in proceedings with the Assistant Collector has not been placed or proved on record the order of the Assistant Collector has been exhibited as Ext.PW-1/B. A perusal of this order clearly shows that the plea of the appellant was that he had been in possession of the land from time immemorial and in this way it appears that the appellant had set up the plea of adverse possession. The proceedings culminated in the order of eviction dated 30.3.1989 passed by the Collector. It would be pertinent to mention here that as per the unamended provisions of the H.P. Land Revenue Act existing prior to 23.6.1989 the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to decide a dispute with regard to a question of title raised before it. The aggrieved party either before or after exhausting his remedies available under the Act could challenge the order of the revenue authorities by way of filing civil suit in case question of title such as a claim for ownership on the basis of adverse possession had been raised. Reference in this behalf may be made to a decision of this Court in Kaka Ram vs. Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh and others, AIR 1985 HP 21. In this case the Court held as follows:

(2.) THEREAFTER , the H.P. Land Revenue Act was amended by the H.P. Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1989. After the amendment of the Land Revenue Act in case a question of title with regard to the allegedly encroached land even by claiming title on the basis of adverse possession is raised by the alleged encroacher a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector Grade-I shall proceed to determine the question as if it is a civil court and exercise all, such powers as are exercised by the civil court. An appeal from the order/judgment of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade lies to the District Judge. Further appeal lies to the High Court only if substantial question of law is involved in the case. It would be pertinent to refer to the amended provisions of Section 163 of the Act:

(3.) THEREAFTER , the appellant filed the present suit praying for a declaration that he may be declared owner in possession of suit land by way of adverse possession and for declaration that the orders of the revenue authorities were without jurisdiction and illegal. The learned trial Court held that in view of the amended provisions of the Act it had no jurisdiction to decide the suit. On merits the trial Court held that the appellant had become owner by way of adverse possession but the suit was dismissed since the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial Court held that the return of the suit could not be ordered in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case inasmuch as there was no court or authority before which the appellant could file his case. An appeal was filed before the learned District Judge, Shimla who after analysis of the various provisions of the H.P. Land Revenue Act held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. He further went on to hold that in view of the provisions of Section 163(3) of the Act the question with regard to adverse possession could be raised even after the order of ejectment had been executed. Since in the present case only an order of ejectment has been passed the appellant could have approached the revenue authorities and the plaint was ordered to be returned with a direction that the plaintiff may if so advised, approach the Assistant Collector Ist Grade having territorial jurisdiction to determine the plea. Against this judgment the appellant has approached this Court in the present appeal.