HP Land Revenue Act | Discretion Vested In Revenue Officer To Convert Itself As A Civil Court To Decide Plea Of Adverse Possession: High Court

The observations were made by a bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sabina & Justice Satyen Vaidya while hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioner had challenged his ejectment from land owned by State Government in Tika Badhdhar District.

The AC 1st Grade in terms of his order dated March 23, 2011 had ordered that the petitioner be evicted from aforesaid state land by proceeding under Section 163 of The Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (for short ‘The Act’). The order of ejectment passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sujanpur, was upheld by appellate as well as revisional authorities.

The petitioner premised his challenge on the ground that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sujanpur, had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him under law by not converting himself as a Civil Court to decide the question of adverse possession raised by the petitioner. As per petitioner, the appellate and revisional authorities have also erred in affirming the eviction order by ignoring the omission committed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sujanpur.

After anxiously considering the contentions raised the bench observed that mandate of sub-Sections 3 to 6 of Section 163 of the Act, is imperative and hence for adjudicating the plea of adverse possession, discretion is vested with the Assistant Collector 1st Grade either to convert itself as a Civil Court or to decide it otherwise, but the discretion so vested is judicial discretion and cannot be exercised capriciously.

The bench explained that since the authority exercises quasi judicial functions under section 163, the discretion mandatorily has to be exercised objectively. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade has to elaborate reasons, in case he decides against option to convert itself to a Civil Court, the bench underscored.

Pointing out to the copy order of eviction passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sujanpur, the bench noted that the defence plea of adverse possession had been raised by the petitioner in his reply submitted to the show cause notice issued to him under Section 163 of the Act.

"Despite, having noticed aforesaid plea raised by the petitioner, Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sujanpur, proceeded to pass the order of eviction without showing compliance to the provisions of sub Sections 3 to 6 of Section 163 of the Act", the bench added.

Highlighting the miserable failure on the part of Assistant Collector in complying with the obligatory requirement of sub-Section 3 of Section 163, the court said that no reason whatsoever has been assigned for not converting itself as a Civil Court even after noticing the specific plea of adverse possession raised by the petitioner.

Accordingly the bench allowed the petition and set aside the eviction order. However, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., will not be precluded from concluding the proceedings under Section 163 of the Act, against petitioner, after strictly adhering to the provisions of sub-Sections 3 to 6 of section 163 of the Act, the bench concluded.

Case Title: Sh. Amin Chand Vs State of Himachal Pradesh.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 11

Click Here To Read/Download Order