JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla, dated 30th April, 2001. 2. Few facts may be noticed. 3. Plaintiff Piyare Lal filed a suit before the learned Sub Judge, Theog, Shimla, alleging that he was owner in possession by adverse possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 1081/1, measuring 14-04 bighas, situate in Chak Ratnari, Tehsil Kotkhai in the District of Shimla. He sought a declaration that the revenue entries to the contrary are wrong and illegal. The case of the plaintiff was that he was in possession of this land since the time of his ancestors. This possession, according to the plaintiff, was continuous, open, hostile and against the true owner which has matured into an adverse possession. The land, subject of dispute, is admittedly a Government land. It appears that Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kotkhai, started proceedings under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", for the eviction of the plaintiff from this land on 14th March, 1990 in case No. 6 of 1990. When the matter came up before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kotkhai on 22nd June, 1990, he made an order of eviction of the plaintiff from the disputed land after recording statement of the plaintiff to the effect that the plaintiff had raised an apple orchard and he did not want to give up the possession of this land which, according to the plaintiff, was ancestral. 4. In the suit filed by the plaintiff he took a plea that the order passed by the Assistant Collector is illegal, wrong and not in accordance with law. According to him, he was not afforded an opportunity of being heard by the Assistant Collector. Learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 17th January, 1998 concluded that the plaintiff and his ancestors were encroachers on this land but the Assistant Collector while passing orders of eviction of the plaintiff from this land did not follow the procedure under the law. Orders of the Assistant Collector were held to be illegal and wrong. 5. In appeal learned District Judge vide his impugned judgment took a view that the plaintiff had not sought any declaration regarding illegality of the orders passed by the Assistant Collector evicting the plaintiff from the suit land. Orders of the Assistant Collector were held to be illegal and wrong. 5. In appeal learned District Judge vide his impugned judgment took a view that the plaintiff had not sought any declaration regarding illegality of the orders passed by the Assistant Collector evicting the plaintiff from the suit land. Learned first appellate Court also concluded that the suit having been filed after three years of passing of the orders of Assistant Collector directing the eviction of the plaintiff was not within the period of limitation. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, the only question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, as substantial question of law, is whether Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. 7. Section 163 of the Act reads: "163. Prevention of encroachment on lands.—(1) Where Government land or land which has been reserved for the site of a village or for the common purposes of the co-sharers therein has been encroached upon by any co-sharer or other person for any purpose including construction of a building or other structure therein, then— (a) the Revenue Officer may of his own motion or on the application of any other co-sharer eject the encroaching person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the encroacher) from such land and by order, proclaimed in the manner, mentioned in Section 23, prohibit repetition of the encroachment therein : Provided that no encroacher shall be ejected under this clause unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the ejectment. (b) the Revenue Officer may, having regard to such principles of assessment of damages as may be prescribed, assess the damages on account of such encroachment and may, by order, require the encroacher to pay the damages within such period and in such installments as may be specified in the order; (c) if the encroacher has erected only building or other structure or has grown crops or planted trees on the encroached land it shall be competent for the Revenue Officer, while ordering his ejectment, to dismantle such building or other structure and confiscate any produce or other material on such land and put the same in public auction and deposit the sale proceeds thereof into the Government Treasury; and (d) the Revenue Officer may impose upon the encroacher a fine upto (one thousand rupees per bigha or part thereof in the case of first encroachment) and, where the encroachments repeated, a fine upto (two thousand rupees per bigha or part thereof for each such subsequent encroachment). (2) Any amount payable as damages under clause (b) of sub-section (1) or as fine under clause (d) of that sub-section may be recovered in the same manner or arrears of land revenue. (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, also if he were a Civil Court and shall exercise all such 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 trial of an original suit by a civil court, and he shall record a judgment and decree containing the particulars required by the Code of Civil Procedure, 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. (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" and (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." 7. A bare perusal of sub-section (4) shows that if encroacher claims adverse possession in the Government land then such question is to be decided by the Revenue Officer after following the same procedure as applicable to the trial of a suit by a Civil Court and he shall record the judgment and decree containing the particulars as required under the Code of Civil Procedure. Sub-section (5) provides for an appeal from the decree of the Revenue Officer made under sub-section (4) to the District Judge. Second appeal is provided under sub-section (6) to the High Court though limited to substantial question(s) of law. Sub-section (7) bars any suit or legal proceedings against the Revenue Officer or any person acting under this section in respect of anything done in good faith under these provisions. It is to be further noticed that Section 171 expressly excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in all matters which are within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officers. Sub-section (2) of Section 171 clearly stipulates that a Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any matter as detailed under this sub-section. Clause-xxv to Section 171 (2)\which is relevant for our purpose may be reproduced: "(xxv) any question, as to any land or any right to, or title or interest in, the land which is an encroached land or in relation to which any person claims that it has vested or is deemed to have vested in him and that he cannot be ejected therefrom under sub-section (I) of Section 163; and" 8. Plain reading of Section 171(2)(xxv) shows that Civil Courts do not have jurisdiction in respect of the land to which Section 163 of the Revenue Act applies. 9. This Court in case State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Duni Chand and another, 1994 (2) SLJ 1665, held that Section 171 of the Revenue Act bars jurisdiction of the civil courts to take cognizance with regard to the matters of ejectment of a person from Government land. Such question which a Revenue Officer is empowered to dispose of under Section 163 of the Act. In that case plaintiff filed a suit before the Sub-Judge that the Revenue Officer had not complied with the provisions of the Act and the order was without jurisdiction. The evidence on record suggested that the proceedings were initiated, after a show cause notice, as in the present case, was served upon the plaintiff. The Assistant Collector, thereafter, passed order of the ejectment holding the plaintiff to be a recent encroacher. The plaintiff was dispossessed pursuant to the ejectment order passed by the Assistant Collector. This order was challenged by the plaintiff in the civil suit. The court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff was a recent encroacher. In second appeal, this court held that Section 171 of the Revenue Act bars jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. 10. Again in civil revision No. 67 of 1992 titled State of H.P. and others v. Dalip Singh, decided on 17th March, 1997, plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff has become owner of the land, subject matter of suit, by virtue of his adverse possession. The plaintiff rested his case only on adverse possession and nothing else. Plaintiff in that case sought declaration that he was owner in possession of the land subject matter of the suit in view of his adverse possession. He also sought declaration that revenue entries showing the State of Himachal Pradesh as owner in possession was wrong, incorrect and unwarranted. Interpreting the provisions of Sections 163 and 171 of the Revenue Act a Division Bench of this Court speaking through M. Srinivasan, CJ. (as he then was) observed : "We have no doubt what ever the plaint of the respondent falls squarely within the provisions of Sections 163 and 171 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. Interpreting the provisions of Sections 163 and 171 of the Revenue Act a Division Bench of this Court speaking through M. Srinivasan, CJ. (as he then was) observed : "We have no doubt what ever the plaint of the respondent falls squarely within the provisions of Sections 163 and 171 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. We have no hesitation whatever to hold that the suit of the respondent herein is not sustainable in the Civil Court and the provisions of Section 163 are applicable." 11. Again in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chet Ram, RSA No. 61 of 1994, decided on 19th April, 2000, this Court held that where the claim of the plaintiff rests on the plea of adverse possession in respect of the Government Land after eviction orders have been passed by the Assistant Collector under Section 163 of the Revenue Act Civil Courts will have no jurisdiction. 12. It was contended by Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, that the Revenue Officer did not try the eviction proceedings as civil suit as envisaged under sub-sections 3 and 4 of Section 163 of the Act. He also brought my pointed attention to the fact that no decree was drawn by the Revenue Officer to enable the plaintiff-appellant to file an appeal before the District Judge as contemplated under sub-section (5) of Section 163 of the Act. It may be true, but, to me it seems, an appeal could have been filed by the plaintiff on the ground that question has not been decided in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure and formal decree has not been drawn. This was a matter to be agitated before the learned District Judge in an appeal under sub-section (5) of Section 163 of the Revenue Act. In my view, non compliance with the procedure by the Assistant Collector in exercise of the jurisdiction under sub-section (3) of Section 163 shall not clothe the Civil Courts with the jurisdiction to try such Sit in view of the bar created under Section 171 (2)(xxv) of the Revenue Act. 13. I have no hesitation to hold that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to try this suit. 14. The question is, accordingly, decided. 15. In result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, though for different reasons. 13. I have no hesitation to hold that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to try this suit. 14. The question is, accordingly, decided. 15. In result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, though for different reasons. It is, however, clarified that it will be open to the concerned Revenue Authority to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953, after giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to be heard. 16. No order as to costs. CMP No. 610 of 2001 No order, in view of the order passed in the main appeal. The application is disposed of. Appeal dismissed. -