Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 302 (HP)

OM PARKASH v. STATE OF HP

2001-10-20

S.S.NEGI

body2001
ORDER This matter has been referred by the Collector, Sub-division Bilaspur vide his order dated 9-3-1994 to this court for appropriate orders. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that Shri Magni Ram and three others residents of Village Sakan Kanaum Tehsil and Distt. Bilaspur on 23.1.1992 made a complaint to the Dsitt. Collector Bilaspur by saying that the present petitioner Sh. Om Parkash and 4 others had started encroaching the Govt. land by constructing a residential house thereon. The matter was got enquired into by the Collector which finally resulted into initiation of the eviction proceedings against the present petitioner, by the learned Assistant Collector 1st grade Bilaspur. He after going through the case, hearing the petitioner and the representative of the State, found that the present petitioner and his brother Sh. Jiva Nand had encroached upon the Govt. land and ordered eviction of the petitioners from the land un-authorisedly occupied in Kh. No. 319/314/1 measuring 0-1 Biswas situated in mauza Kanaun, Tehsil Sadar vide order dated 24-3-1992. 3. Against this order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Sadar dated 24-3-1992, the present petitioner Sh. Om Prakash filed an appeal before he Collector, Sub-Division Bilaspur on the grounds that the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade below had not followed the proper procedure since the question of title was involved in the case and the learned Assistant collector had no jurisdiction to order the ejectment of the petitioner from the land and the matter should have been decided by the Sub-Judge and not by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. It was further contended that the impugned order was passed by the Assistant collector 1st Grade behind the back of the petitioner. 4. The learned Collector after hearing both the parties and going through the record, observed that the Assistant Collector should have converted himself into the Civil Court under Section 163(3) of H.P. Land Revenue Act to adjudicate the question of adverse possession claimed by the petitioner. With these view, he has submitted the case to this court for appropriate orders. That is how, the parties are before us. 5. The learned counsel for petitioner averred that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade should have adjudicated the question of title raised by him on 19-12-1992. He reiterated his claim of long-standing possession and pleaded that the question of title be tried and decided. 6. The leaned Distt. That is how, the parties are before us. 5. The learned counsel for petitioner averred that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade should have adjudicated the question of title raised by him on 19-12-1992. He reiterated his claim of long-standing possession and pleaded that the question of title be tried and decided. 6. The leaned Distt. Attorney (Revenue) opposed the plea and urged that there is no evidence on record to suggest long-standing possession of petitioner and revision be dismissed. 7. On consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, it appears appropriate to direct the matter to Assistant Collector 1st Grade Bilaspur for hearing the parties afresh for the reason that on the day when Assistant Collector 1st Grade passed eviction order against/ the petitioner on 24-3-1992, petitioner was not present before him. He was also absent from the proceedings before Assistant Collector 1st: Grade in couple of hearings before the eviction orders were passed. It appears that ex-parte orders were passed by the Assisted Collector 1st Grade against the petitioner. Therefore, the proper course for the petitioner was to request for setting-aside the ex-parte orders, but instead he preferred to file a revision before the Collector. At this stage, I am of the opinion that since the final orders have been passed by the Assistant Collector in absence of the petitioner, therefore in the interest of justice it would be appropriate to direct the matter to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade for decision afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner... Resultantly the recommendation made by Collector Sub-Division, Sadar, Bilaspur are accepted to the extent that the matter needs to be-tried afresh by the Assistant collector 1st Grade Bilaspur. Since the matter is very old, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade shall decide the case expeditiously, within a period of three months. Orders be communicated to the parties and the case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.