IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: FAO.No.446/2004. Date of Decision:20th August,2008 Devi Ram. …Appellant. Versus: State of H.P. …Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 .Yes For the appellant: Mr.Inderjit Singh Narwal,Advocate. For Respondent . Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General with Mr.Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J (Oral). The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 25th June, 2004 passed by Additional District Judge, Shimla, H.P. in Civil Appeal No.92-S/13 of 2001 titled as Devi Ram Vs. State of H.P., partly reversing the judgment and decree dated 28th March, 2001 passed by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Chopal, District Shimla in Case No. 56-1 of 1997 titled as Devi Ram Vs. State of H.P. and directing the plaint be returned to the plaintiff. The appellant/plaintiff by filing a civil suit assailed the orders dated 18th January, 1993 passed by Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Chopal and 21st March, 1995 passed by the Collector, Chopal with a further prayer that the State be injuncted from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession as alleged?. ..OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction. …OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? ..OPD. 4. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as alleged?. …OPD. 5. Whether no notice under Section 80 CPC. was served upon the defendant. If so, its effect. …OPD. 6. Whether the suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction.? …OPD. Vide judgment and decree dated 28th March, 2001, the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. dismissed the plaintiff’s suit No.56-1 of 1997 holding that the same was not maintainable as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the same. On merit the plaintiff’s plea of adverse possession was also rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal which stood partly allowed in terms of impugned judgment dated 25th June, 2004. The first appellate Court came to the conclusion that keeping in view the provisions of Sections 163 and 171 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), the jurisdiction of the 3 Civil Court was barred and hence the plaint was directed to be returned to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, Sh.Haminder Singh (PW-2), Sh.Fagia Ram (PW-3) and Sh.Rajinder Singh (PW-4) and placed on record copy of the orders passed by the Assistant Collector dated 18th January, 1993 Ext.PW-1/A and Collector dated 21st March,1995 Ext.PW-1/B. The trial Court has not gone into the validity of the orders passed by the revenue authorities for want of jurisdiction. The first appellate Court has also directed the plaint to be returned for want of jurisdiction. There is nothing on record to establish that the plaintiff had asked the adjudicating authorities under the Act to exercise their power under Section 163 of sub-section (4) of the Act and adjudicate the dispute of title or adverse possession as a Civil Court. Both the Courts below have concurrently held so. However, from the perusal of Ext.PW-1/B, it is evident that the appellant had raised the plea of adverse possession. Section 171 of the Act provides as under: 4 “171. Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court in matters within the jurisdiction of Revenue Officers---Except as otherwise provided by this Act— (1) A Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction in any matter which the State Government or a Revenue Officer is empowered by this Act, to dispose of, or take cognizance of the manner in which the State Government or any Revenue Officer exercises any powers vested in it or him by or under this Act, and in particular. (2) A Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters, namely— ………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………. (v) The framing of a record-of-rights or annual record or the preparation, signing or attestation of any of the documents included in such a record;. (vi) the correction of any entry in a record-of- rights, periodical record or register of mutations………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………..” There is nothing on record which would show that the statutory authorities had not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or had not acted in compliance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Chuhniya Devi Vs. Jindu Ram, 1991 (1) Sim. L.C. 223, no interference is called for and it cannot be held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 5 This court in State of H.P. Vs. Lachhu Ram, 2001 (3) Shim.L.C. 373 has held that the provisions of the Act and more particularly Section 163 itself lays down the procedure for exhausting the remedies against the order passed by the revenue authorities directing eviction from the Government land. The fact of the matter, however, is that the plaint has been directed to be returned to the appellant. The State has not filed any appeal. Therefore, it would always be open for the appellant to assail the orders passed by the statutory authorities in accordance with the provisions of the Act itself. For the aforesaid reasons, no interference is warranted except for the observation made hereinabove and the appeal is accordingly disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 20, 2008(R)