IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.48 of 2002 Reserved on: 2.6.2011 Date of decision: 3.6.2011 State of H.P …. Petitioner Versus Shri Bali Ram ….. Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocate for LR No.1(a). ________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. This petition by the State is directed against the judgment dated 28.8.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.71 of 2001 whereby he allowed the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sadar, Bilaspur, H.P to decide the case afresh in accordance with law. 2 Briefly stated the facts of the case are that eviction proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P Land Revenue Act, 1954 were initiated by the State against the plaintiff Bali Ram on the ground that he had encroached upon 7-19 bighas of land belonged to the Government comprised in Khasra Nos.420/414/1 and 415/319/2 situate in Village Sohra Biuns, Pargana Bahadurpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. After these proceeding were initiated, show cause notice was sent to the plaintiff as to why he be not evicted from the land. The plaintiff appeared before the Collector and made the following statement on oath:- “I have received the show cause notice. I do not want to give up my illegal possession of the Government land. I have made fields on the spot. This is my only statement.” It is thus obvious that the plaintiff only claimed that he is in possession of the land, in question, and has made 3 fields thereon and does not want to give up possession of the same. The plaintiff did not himself appear in the witness box nor did he file any reply to the show cause notice but produced two witnesses who stated that the plaintiff is in possession of the land for a long time. The learned Assistant Collector came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to possession of the suit land and ordered his eviction from the same and a fine of Rs.35,000/- was also imposed upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur who came to the conclusion that since a plea of adverse possession had been raised, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade was required to convert himself into a revenue Court. The learned District Judge held that the Assistant Collector had not followed the proper procedure and, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Assistant Collector and remanded the case 4 back to him to decide the case afresh in accordance with law. Section 163 of the H.P Land Revenue Act deals with eviction of encroachers from Government land and sub-section (3) of Section 163 of the Act provides that when a question of title or adverse possession is raised by the encroacher, the Revenue Officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade shall proceed to determine the question as if he were a Civil Court. It is thus obvious that a Revenue Officer cannot decide the question of title or the issue of adverse possession without first converting himself into a revenue court. However, in case no question of title is raised nor adverse possession claimed then the revenue Court has to decide the issue of encroachment alone. In the present case, the plaintiff did not file any written statement. In his statement, reproduced hereinabove, the 5 plaintiff did not claim title nor did he claim that he had become owner by way of adverse possession. When no such issue was raised, there was no need for the Collector to convert himself into a revenue court and no evidence beyond the statement of the encroacher could be looked into as far as this aspect of the matter is concerned. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the learned District Judge totally mis-directed himself by holding that the Collector had not followed the correct procedure. The order of the learned District Judge, Bilaspur is accordingly set aside and the order of the learned Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Bilaspur is restored. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. June 3, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge 6