IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: RSA.No. 480/2000 Date of Decision :28th April, 2008. Inder Vikram Lal. …Appellant. Versus: State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr.Ashwani Sharma, Advocate. . For Respondent. Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General with Ms.Subh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J(Oral). The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 12th June, 2000 passed by District Judge, Shimla in Case No.15/1 of 1995 titled as Inder Vikram Lal Vs. State of H.P. dismissing the appeal arising out of the judgment and decree dated 23rd December, 1998 passed by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Rohru, Camp at Jubbal, District Shimla in Civil Suit No. 15/1 of 1995. The appellant herein/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration claiming title by way of adverse possession with regard to Khasra No 200/3, measuring 3 bigha 11 biswa, 200/4, measuring 1 bigha 11 biswas, 210/2 measuring 1 bigha 3 biswa, 210/3, measuring 6 biswa, 210/4, measuring 16 biswa, total 6 bigha-7 biswas, situated in chak Shalar, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The respondent-State/defendant had initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1953 (Hereinafter referred to as the “Revenue Act”) and vide order dated 17th January, 1989 (Ext.PW-1/B) the Assistant Collector Ist Grade directed ejectment of the appellant from the suit land. In an appeal filed by the appellant, the Collector affirmed the order of ejectment on 29th March, 1993. This order of 29th March, 1993 was the subject matter of challenge in the suit. On the pleadings of the parties, the court below framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff has perfected his title over the suit land by way of adverse possession as alleged?. …OPP. 2. Whether order of Collector Sub Division Rohru dated (29.3.93) is null and void as alleged?. …OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? …OPP. 4. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit as alleged ? …OPP. 5. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant? as alleged?. …OPD. 6. Whether present suit is bad for want of notice u/s 80 C.P.C. …OPD. 7. Relief. The trial Court held that in view of the specific bar under Section 171 of the Revenue Act, the suit filed by the appellant was not maintainable and as such could not be decreed. The findings returned by the trial Court were also affirmed by the first appellate Court. However, opportunity was granted to the appellant to exercise its right in view of the amendment dated 27th June, 1989 carried out in the Revenue Act. 3 Post amendment, the appellant has a remedy of approaching the Revenue Officer under the Act for determination of the question of title by way of adverse possession. The Collector has to convert itself as a Civil Court and exercised all such powers as may be necessary for adjudication of the controversy in issue. The first appellate Court has granted the opportunity to the appellant to do so. Section 163 sub-section (3) of the “Revenue Act” is clear and ambiguous. Whenever there is question as to title or adverse possession and the possession is claimed for more than thirty years in relation to the land from which “ejectment is made or is to be made” the Revenue Officer shall proceed to determine the question as a Civil Court. The amendment came during the pendency of the proceedings initiated before the Collector. The Collector was duty bound to have examined the appellant’s claim in accordance with law. Un-fortunately nothing has been placed on record to show as to what transpired before the Collector. Be that as it may be opportunity has been granted to the appellant to raise all issues before the Collector under the provisions of the Act. It is directed that keeping in view the liberty granted by the Court below, it would be well within his rights to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 163 of the Act. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (Sanjay Karol) Judge. April 29, 2008(R) 4