Himachal Pradesh High Court decided that the judicial discretion vested with the Revenue Officer to convert itself as a Civil Court while adjudicating a plea of adverse possession under the Himachal Land Revenue Act 1954 cannot be used arbitrarily or capriciously.
Brief Facts:
The present writ petition challenges the ejectment from land owned by the State Government in Tika Badhdhar Mauja Chabutra, Tehsil Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. The petitioner was asked to evacuate the land by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade through an order dated 23.03.2011. This order was upheld by the appellate as well as the revisional authorities.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Assistant Collector has not exercised his jurisdiction of converting himself as a Civil Court to adjudicate on the matter which was about adverse possession.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that the discretion is vested with the Assistant Collector to convert itself as a Civil Court or to decide otherwise. It was held that the authority had to use this discretion objectively, as it performs quasi-judicial functions under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act 1954. The Court directed that if the authority chooses to not act as a Civil Court, then it has to provide substantive reasons for the same, which had not been done in the given case. The Court held that there was a failure of duty on the Assistant Collector’s part as he did not give any reason as to why he would not be converting to a Civil Court after the plea of adverse possession was raised.
The decision of the Court:
The writ petition was allowed by the High Court and the eviction order was set aside. The Court concluded that the Assistant Collector would not be precluded from the proceedings under the State’s Land Revenue Act.
Case Title: Sh. Amin Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Coram: Justice Sabina and Justice Satyen Vaidya
Case No.: CWP No. 2274 of 2022
Advocate for the Appellants: Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent:Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments