17.03.2026 vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 17 March, 2026

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On: 17.03.2026 vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 17 March, 2026

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

                                                                                             2026:HHC:8478


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                                                 CWP No.3122 of 2026
                                                  Decided on: 17.03.2026
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Parma Nand                                                    .....Petitioner




                                                                                               .

                                                       Versus

     State of H.P. & Ors                                          .....Respondents





    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coram

    Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua




                                                             of
    Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes

    For the Petitioner:    rt                Mr. H. S. Rangra, Advocate.

    For the Respondents: Mr. L. N. Sharma, Additional Advocate
                         General.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Proceedings under Section 163 of the Himachal

Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (the Act in short) were

initiated against the petitioner. The Assistant Collector First

Grade, on 16.01.2018, ordered ejectment of the petitioner

from the land in question. Petitioner’s appeal against the

aforesaid order was dismissed by the Sub Divisional

Collector on 20.08.2019. Revision Petition preferred by the

petitioner was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner,

1
Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

::: Downloaded on – 27/03/2026 20:35:04 :::CIS
2

2026:HHC:8478

Mandi [exercising powers of Financial Commissioner

(Appeals)] on 29.03.2025.

The above concurrent orders passed against the

.

petitioner by three revenue authorities below ordering his

ejectment from the land has led the petitioner to institute

present writ petition.

2. On the basis of a demarcation carried out by

revenue officer on 30.01.2016, a notice under Section 163

of
of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 was issued to the

petitioner by Assistant Collector First Grade, Karsog,
rt
District Mandi on 21.04.2016, alleging that he had

encroached upon Government land comprised in: –

(i) Khasra No. 596/542/1 measuring 00-00-

16 bighas; and

(ii) Khasra No.596/542/2 measuring 00-04-
00 bighas, in Mohal Alsindi, Tehsil Karsog,
District Mandi, H.P.

Petitioner in his response to the notice, pleaded

that construction over the land in question was raised by

his late grandfather about 60 years ago; The land even if

owned by the State, had been coming in possession of

petitioner’s family over the years. Petitioner’s possession

over the land was continuous, uninterrupted, peaceful

and had ripened into adverse possession.

::: Downloaded on – 27/03/2026 20:35:04 :::CIS
3

2026:HHC:8478

Petitioner also alleged that demarcation of the

land had neither been carried out by the Competent

Authority nor in accordance with prescribed procedure.

.

According to the petitioner, demarcation could not have

been conducted by a revenue officer below the rank of

Assistant Collector First Grade, whereas, in the instant

case, Field Kanungo, had demarcated the land and further

three ‘pucca’ triangle points had not been fixed.

of
3(i) Assistant Collector First Grade vide his order

dated 16.01.2018 (Annexure P-4), held that:- Petitioner had
rt
not been able to produce any substantive evidence in

support of his plea of being in possession over the land in

question for more than sixty years; The evidence led by the

State had proved petitioner’s unauthorized and illegal

possession over the Government land. It was further held

that demarcation was conducted as per law and Field

Kanungo had been authorized to give land demarcation

under general instructions issued on 13.09.2012 by the

Principal Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of

Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner was accordingly ordered

to be evicted from the land.

3(ii) Before the Appellate Authority i.e. Sub

Divisional Collector Karsog, District Mandi, the main focus

::: Downloaded on – 27/03/2026 20:35:04 :::CIS
4
2026:HHC:8478

of the petitioner was around demarcation of the land

carried out by the Field Kanungo. According to the

petitioner, demarcation could not be carried out by a

.

revenue officer below the rank of Assistant Collector Second

Grade, whereas, in the instant case, it was the Field

Kanungo, who demarcated the land. This according to the

petitioner vitiated the entire proceedings initiated by the

respondents under Section 163 of the Act.

of
The Sub Divisional Collector rejected petitioner’s

contention in relation to competence of the Field Kanungo
rt
to demarcate the land. By placing reliance upon State

instructions dated 16.07.2012/ 13.09.2012 which

authorized the Revenue Officer concerned (Assistant

Collector of either grade) to direct the Field Kanungo or a

consultant to carry out demarcation of the land in presence

of necessary parties, it was held that Field Kanungo was

competent to give demarcation of the land. A perusal of

order passed by the Sub Divisional Collector on 20.08.2019

reflects that notwithstanding above, the Appellate

Authority, in the interest of justice, on 12.06.2018, directed

the Assistant Collector First Grade to conduct fresh

demarcation of the land in accordance with applicable rules

and instructions and submit the report. Petitioner was also

::: Downloaded on – 27/03/2026 20:35:04 :::CIS
5
2026:HHC:8478

directed to remain present before the Assistant Collector

First Grade, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi on 18.06.2018

and also on the spot for demarcation on the day fixed by

.

the said authority.

Pursuant to the directions issued by the Sub

Divisional Collector, land was demarcated afresh in

presence of petitioner on 25.05.2019.

of
Petitioner again raised objection that the

demarcation had to be conducted by a Revenue Officer not
rt
below the rank of Naib Tehsildar (Assistant Collector

Second Grade). The plea was turned down by the Sub

Divisional Collector keeping in view the office

letter/general instructions dated 13.09.2012 that

authorized Assistant Collector of either grade to depute

Field Kanungo for demarcating the land. The demarcation

that was conducted in presence of the petitioner was held

to be in accordance with law and prescribed procedure.

Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed on 20.08.2019

(Annexure P-5) thereby affirming the order passed by the

Assistant Collector First Grade.

3(iii) Petitioner preferred revision petition before the

Divisional Commissioner. The said Authority exercising the

powers of Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal

::: Downloaded on – 27/03/2026 20:35:04 :::CIS
6
2026:HHC:8478

Pradesh, dismissed the same as devoid of merit on

29.03.2025 (Annexure P-6).

3(iv) In the above background, petitioner has filed

.

this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

“a) That the impugned order of the respondent s No.2 to 4
annexed as P-4 to P-6 may kindly be set aside/quashed

and declared null and void and not binding upon the
petitioner.

of

(b) That the respondents also be directed to consider the
claim of the petitioner as per the provisions of Section
163(iii) as Civil Court as fresh and thereafter providing
opportunities to both parties to lead their evidence and
rt
taking in to consideration the evidence led by the
petitioner.”

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

considered the case file.

4(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner raised an

issue that in his reply filed to the notice issued under

Section 163 of the Act, petitioner had taken the plea of

being in adverse possession over the land. In view of this

defence, the Assistant Collector First Grade was required in

terms of Section 163 of the Act to decide the question of

title over the land, raised by the petitioner, by converting

himself into Civil Court. This recourse was not adopted by

the Assistant Collector First Grade. Consequently, entire

proceedings have to held illegal. Placing reliance upon

::: Downloaded on – 27/03/2026 20:35:04 :::CIS
7
2026:HHC:8478

Joginder Singh & Others Vs. State of H.P. & others 2

learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of

plea of adverse possession set up by the petitioner, it was

.

imperative for the Assistant Collector to have converted

into Civil Court to decide the question of title. Failure of

Assistant Collector First Grade in converting himself into

Civil Court to decide the question of title raised by the

petitioner would render the ejectment proceedings illegal.

of
Relevant portion of the decision pressed into service reads

as under:- rt
“6. Section 163(3) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act provides as

under:-

“Section 163(3) in The Himachal Pradesh Land
Revenue Act, 1953 (3)[ When there is a question

as to title or to the adverse possession, wherein
the possession is claimed by an encroacher for a
period beyond thirty years in relation to the land

from which ejectment is made or is to be made
under this section, the Revenue Officer, not below

the rank of an Assistant Collector of the First
Grade, shall proceed to determine the question,
as if he, were a civil court and shall exercise all

such powers as are exerciseable by a civil court.]
[Added by H.P.L.R. (Amendment) Act 1989 Act
No. 15 of 1989 published in R.H.P. ex-ordinary
pages 1503-1504].”

7. This provision is mandatory and in case in the course of
the proceedings initiated against a person, he takes the

2
CWP No.2088 of 2016 decided on 07.04.2025

::: Downloaded on – 27/03/2026 20:35:04 :::CIS
8
2026:HHC:8478

stand that he has been in possession of the land for
more than thirty years, then the revenue officer, not
below the rank of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, has to
proceed to determine the question, as if he, were a Civil
Court and shall exercise all such powers as are

.

exercisable by a Civil Court. Despite the defence of

possession of more than thirty years having been taken
by the petitioners, the Assistant Collector, 1 st Grade
did not convert itself into a Civil Court.

8. Therefore, the order that was passed by the officer was
per se bad. The Appellate Authority and the Revenue

of
Authority also erred in not appreciating that as the
provisions of Section 163 (3) of the H.P. Land Revenue
Act were mandatory and were required to be religiously
followed, the derogation of the same by Assistant
rt
Collector, 1st Grade, vitiated the proceedings. Both the
Authorities though went into the question of the

mandate of Section 163 (3) of the H.P. Land
Revenue Act, but erred in upholding the order passed
by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade.

9. Therefore, as this Court has no hesitation in holding that
the orders passed by Assistant Collector as well as the
Appellate and Revisional Authorities are bad in law,

this petition is allowed. The order of eviction as well as
the subsequent orders passed by the Appellate and

Revisional Authorities are quashed and set aside and
the matter is remanded back to the Court of Assistant

Collector, 1st Grade, Dharamshala, with the direction
that the said Authority shall proceed in the matter in
accordance with the provisions of Section 163 (3) of the
H.P. Land Revenue Act. It is clarified that this Court has
not expressed any view on the merits of the case and
the Authority concerned shall proceed with the matter
uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court in
the course of adjudication of this petition.”

::: Downloaded on – 27/03/2026 20:35:04 :::CIS
9

2026:HHC:8478

4(ii) Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act reads

as under:-

.

“163. Prevention of encroachment on lands.-

(1) Where Government land or land which has been
reserved for the site of village or for the common purposes or

uses of the estate right holders or of the co-sharers therein,
has been encroached upon by any person or co-sharer for
any purpose including construction of a building or other

of
structures or by planting trees therein, then-

(a) the Revenue Officer may of his own motion or
on the report of patwari of the circle duly verified
by the Kanungo of the Circle or on the application
rt of any estate right holder or cosharers, after
giving reasonable opportunity of being heard,
shall eject him from such land by order 4 [within
six months from the date of taking of cognizance

or from the date of receipt of such report or from
the date of filing of such application, as the case
may be, however, the period may further be
extended upto three months for the reasons to be
recorded in writing], in the manner prescribed;

(b) if the encroacher has erected any building or

other structure or has planted trees on the
encroached land, the same shall, in the
prescribed manner, vest in the State Government
free from all encumbrances:

Provided that if the building or structure attachments thereto

are situated partly in the owned land of the encroacher and
partly on the encroached land, the Revenue Officer shall be
competent to demolish the portion of the building or

structure on the encroached land if the encroacher fails to
demolish it himself as ordered by the Revenue Officer; and

(c) the Revenue Officer shall impose upon the
encroacher a fine upto Rs. 1 [20,000/- or the
prevalent market value of the land, whichever is
higher] per bigha or part thereof, which shall be
recoverable, as if it were an arrear of land
revenue.

(2) If a person who has been evicted from any land under
this section again occupies the land without authority for
such occupation, he shall be punished with imprisonment

::: Downloaded on – 27/03/2026 20:35:04 :::CIS
10
2026:HHC:8478

for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which
may extend to fifty thousand rupees or double the prevalent
market value of the land, whichever is higher rupees or with
both:

Provided that no court shall take cognizance under this sub-

.

section of an offence unless a report in writing is made by a

Revenue Officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector
First Grade.

(3) When there is a question as to title or to the

adverse possession, wherein the possession is claimed
by an encroacher for a period beyond thirty years in
relation to the land from which ejectment is made or

of
is to be made under this section, the Revenue Officer,
not below the rank of an Assistant Collector of the
First Grade, may proceed to determine the question,
as if he were a civil court and shall exercise all such
rt
powers as are exercisable by a civil court.

(4) For the determination of the question under sub-

section (3), the Revenue Officer shall follow the same
procedure as is applicable to the trail of an original suit by a
civil court, and he shall record a judgement and decree
containing the particulars required by the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) to be specified therein.

(5) An appeal from the decree of the Revenue Officer
made under sub-section (4) shall lie to the District Judge as

if that decree were a decree of a Subordinate Judge in an
original suit.

(6) A further appeal from the appellate decree of a District
Judge upon an appeal under sub-section (5), shall lie to the

High Court only if the High Court is satisfied that a
substantial question of law is involved.

(7) No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against the
Revenue Officer or any person acting under this section in
respect of anything in good faith done or purported to have
been done under the provisions thereof or the rules made
thereunder.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, any
person who holds land under a lease granted by the

::: Downloaded on – 27/03/2026 20:35:04 :::CIS
11
2026:HHC:8478

Government for a fixed term and continues to be in
possession of the land beyond the expiry of the period of
lease shall be deemed to be encroacher unless such person
gets the lease extended or renewed.”

The ratio of above decision is based upon

.

unamended Section 163(3) of H.P. Land Revenue Act

wherein the word ‘shall proceed’ was used in relation to

duty of the Assistant Collector while deciding the plea of

adverse possession taken by the alleged encroacher. By

of
virtue of amendment carried out in Section 163(3), under

the H.P. Act No.15 of 2000, the words ‘shall proceed’ stand
rt
replaced with the words ‘may proceed’. The substitution of

the words ‘shall’ with ‘may’ was not brought to the notice of

the Court in Joginder Singh2. The amendment gives

discretion to the revenue officer for proceeding in the matter

as a Civil Court in case plea of adverse possession is taken

or question of title is raised by the alleged encroacher. This

discretion though has to be exercised judiciously,

reasonably and in accordance with law.

It will be in place to refer to Manorama Devi

Versus State of H.P. & others3, wherein appellant’s

contention was that the Assistant Collector was under legal

obligation to convert himself into Civil Court once the

3
LPA No.168 of 2024, decided on 23.12.2024

::: Downloaded on – 27/03/2026 20:35:04 :::CIS
12
2026:HHC:8478

appellant had raised the plea of having perfected title over

the alleged encroached land by way of adverse possession.

Hon’ble Division Bench rejected the plea as under:-

.

“8. It is clear from the reading of above provisions that the

use of word “may” in sub section (3) of Section 163 of
the Act makes it discretionary for the Assistant Collector
1st Grade either to convert itself as a Civil Court or to
decide it otherwise, though, the discretion is judicial

discretion and cannot be exercised arbitrarily.

9. The record reveals that respondent No.3 vide order
dated 05.11.2018 had ordered the ejectment of

of
appellant by returning a finding of fact that the
appellant had failed to prove her long standing
possession of 50 years. He placed reliance on the
jamabandi for the year 2014-15, besides other evidence
on record to come to such conclusion. The appellate
rt
authority noted the contention of the appellant that
respondent No.3 had failed to decide the question of

adverse possession raised by appellant, in accordance
with law and proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the
appellant by upholding the finding of fact recorded by
respondent No.3 and also by taking into consideration
the admission allegedly made by the appellant as to

encroachment carried by her.

10. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) also noticed the
contention of the appellant with respect to non-

consideration of the plea of adverse possession and
rejected the same by holding that mere raising of the
question of title by adverse possession does not make it

incumbent upon the revenue Officer to accept it as he
has to ascertain and determine whether such a question
in fact is involved or not. The satisfaction of Assistant

Collector 1st Grade, holding proceedings under Section
163 of the Act, has been held to be sine qua non to
determine the question as a Civil Court.

11. Learned writ Court has also non-suited the appellant by
taking into consideration her plea in the reply before
respondent No.3 that she had submitted her application
for regularization of encroached land to the competent
authority in the year 2002. Learned Single Judge
noticed that in view of such plea, the plea of adverse
possession allegedly raised by the appellant had been

::: Downloaded on – 27/03/2026 20:35:04 :::CIS
13
2026:HHC:8478

rendered nugatory.

12. We find no reason to disagree with the reasons
assigned by the learned writ Court. Once, the appellant
had admitted by way of her pleading that she had
applied for regularization of encroached land to the
competent authority in 2002, the plea of adverse

.

possession was deemed to have been given up.

Noticeably, as per the appellant she had allegedly
perfected the title by adverse possession on the
encroached land in the year 2002 itself.

13. In above discussed circumstances, no fault can be
found in the proceedings of respondent No.3. Once,
there was no plea of adverse possession, respondent
No.3 was not bound to exercise discretion for converting

of
himself into a Civil Court.”

4(iii) In terms of Section 163(3) of the Act, when there
rt
is a question as to title or adverse possession wherein

possession over the land in question is claimed by an

encroacher for a period beyond thirty years, the revenue

officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector First Grade

‘may proceed’ to determine the question as if he was a Civil

Court by exercising all such powers as are exercised by the

Civil Court.

In the given case all the three Revenue

Authorities have concurrently returned findings of facts

that petitioner could not produce on record any evidence

whatsoever much less credible in support of his plea that

he or his predecessors-in-interest were in possession over

the land in question for more than thirty years. The

::: Downloaded on – 27/03/2026 20:35:04 :::CIS
14
2026:HHC:8478

response to the notice filed by the petitioner suggests that

petitioner never even specifically prayed before Assistant

Collector First Grade to convert into Civil Court. Save and

.

except for the following isolated sentence in petitioner’s

reply about his being in adverse possession, no further

pleadings in support of the plea can be discerned:-

“That allegation made against the respondent
is wrong, incorrect and hence denied. It is submitted

of
that alleged house has been constructed by the Grand-
father of the respondent about 60 years back. It is
pertinent to mention here that Smt. Begamu Devi
rt
mother of respondent has executed registered WILL of
all moveable and immovable property on dated 13-12-

2004 in favour of the respondent. If it is proved that
the alleged house is upon the Govt. area in that event
the possession of late Sh. Chhawadu, then Shambhu
then Smt. Begamu Devi and respondent are continues,

uninterrupted and peaceful of the grandparents and
parents of respondent and ripened into adverse
possession.

(Copy of WILL attached)”

Petitioner had ample opportunity to demonstrate

his alleged possession over the land for years together to

establish his plea of adverse possession. Not a semblance

of evidence was produced by him in this regard before the

Assistant Collector First Grade. State produced its

witnesses who were cross examined by the petitioner.

Petitioner also stepped in the witness box and was cross-

::: Downloaded on – 27/03/2026 20:35:04 :::CIS
15

2026:HHC:8478

examined. Considering petitioner’s pleadings, his defence,

there is no necessity for the Assistant Collector First Grade

to convert himself into Civil Court, the occasion did not

.

arise. There was no requirement in law mandating the

Assistant Collector to convert into Civil Court the moment

plea of adverse possession is taken. It is not petitioner’s

case that he even requested the Assistant Collector to

convert himself into Civil Court. Petitioner has also failed to

of
demonstrate the prejudice caused to him by Assistant

Collector, not deciding the case as a Civil Court. It is not
rt
the case of petitioner that any evidence produced by him

was not considered by the authority. The land admittedly is

owned by the State Government. To a query of the Court

during hearing of this petition, as to whether the petitioner

is in possession of any evidence whatsoever, to reflect his

adverse possession over the land in question for more than

thirty years, the answer given by the leaned counsel for the

petitioner was in the negative. That being the admitted

position, no fault can be found in the order passed by the

Assistant Collector First Grade. It is not just mere one-line

figuring in the reply “possession of the petitioner over the

premises in question dates back to more than thirty years”,

that mandates the concerned Revenue Authority to convert

::: Downloaded on – 27/03/2026 20:35:04 :::CIS
16
2026:HHC:8478

itself into a Civil Court. For doing that, for converting into a

Civil Court, a question of title/plea of adverse possession

.

must be effectively and substantively raised, it must reflect

from the pleadings, supported by some form of foundational

facts. The Authority below has to exercise its discretion to

determine as to whether the defence taken by the alleged

of
encroacher in the ejectment proceedings merits

determination of question of title/adverse possession,

whether such question of tittle/plea of adverse possession
rt
actually arises from the pleadings, whether there is tangible

substance in the pleadings and the defence taken by the

respondent. Merely on standalone assertion of being in

adverse possession of the alleged encroacher facing

ejectment proceedings for having encroached government

land, the Authority concerned is not bound to convert itself

into Civil Court.

4(iv) Apart from the issue discussed in para-4, no

other point was urged during hearing of the petition.

5. Consequently, there is no merit in the present

writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.

::: Downloaded on – 27/03/2026 20:35:04 :::CIS
17

2026:HHC:8478

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,

also to stand disposed of.

.

                                           Jyotsna Rewal Dua
    March 17, 2026                               Judge
        R.Atal





                                      of
                   rt









                                          ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2026 20:35:04 :::CIS