IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No.:138/2010 Reserved on: 7.4.2011 Decided on:8.7.2011 _____________________________________________ Sharwan Singh and others. …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners : Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant A.G. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.5.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 18-N/14 of 2009. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this revision petition are that Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Nahan initiated proceedings under section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act (hereinafter 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 referred to as “the Act” for brevity sake) against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioner’ for convenience sake) on the report of Patwari Halqua that he has raised construction on the suit land comprised in khasra No.96/1 measuring 0-1 bigha situated in Mauza Banethi, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur. Petitioner filed a reply before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. He took a preliminary objection that he has no jurisdiction since question of title was involved and he was required to convert himself into a Civil Court for determination of the question. According to him, his possession was for more than 30 years and he had become owner by way of adverse possession. Ejectment orders were passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 16.11.2005. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Collector, Nahan. He dismissed the same on 28.8.2006. Thereafter, revision was preferred before the Divisional Commissioner. He dismissed the same on 19.6.2008. Petitioners challenged these orders by way of Civil Suit No. 155/1 of 2008. According to them, the procedure prescribed under section 163 of the Act has not been followed and they have become owner by way of adverse 3 possession and the respondent was threatening to interfere with their possession. 3. Written statement was filed by the respondent. Preliminary objection was raised with regard to lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. On the basis of the pleadings, this issue was ordered to be treated as preliminary issue vide order dated 11.8.2009. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) after taking into consideration the various judgments of this Court held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear and entertain the suit filed by the petitioner vide order dated 14.9.2009. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Sirmaur. He dismissed the same on 31.5.2010. 4. Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate appearing vice counsel on behalf of the petitioners has strenuously argued that in this case both the courts below have erred in law by coming to conclusion that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction once the proceedings had been initiated under section 163 of the Act. 5. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has supported the orders passed by both the courts below. 4 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 7. The ejectment proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. He filed reply to the same. He has taken objection that he has become owner by way of adverse possession and since the question of title was involved, the Court was required to convert itself into Civil Court and the decree was required to be passed. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade passed the order of ejectment on 16.11.2005, which was upheld by the Sub Divisional Collector, Nahan on 28.8.2006 and by the Divisional Commissioner on 19.6.2008. The learned Additional District Judge has correctly applied the ratio of judgments reported in 2001 (3) Shim.L.C. 395, 2002 (1) Shim. L.C. 124 and 2003 (1) Cur. L.J. (H.P.) 314 while coming to the conclusion that Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of exclusion of section 171 of the Act once the proceedings have been initiated under section 163 of the Act. In the instant case, the hierarchy provided under the Act has passed the orders on 16.11.2005, 28.8.2006 and 19.6.2008. Section 163 of the Act is a complete code in itself the manner in which the ejectment proceedings have to be initiated and in what circumstances the revenue authority can convert 5 itself into Civil Court for the determination of the issue raised with regard to adverse possession or title. Mere raising of a question of adverse possession does not make incumbent upon a Revenue Officer to accept this plea and convert himself into Civil Court. It is open to the Revenue Officer to hold a preliminary inquiry whether such a plea exists on the basis of material brought before him or not. If the Revenue Officer is satisfied that this question arises, only in those cases, he has to determine this question as if he were a Civil Court and has to pass a judgment and decree. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 8.7. 2011. *awasthi*