Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 413 (HP)

JAMIT SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2001-12-31

S.S.NEGI

body2001
ORDER S.S. Negi, IAS :- The present revision petition has come up for hearing on the recommendations of the learned Divisional Commissioner. Kangra dated 20.2.1995 whereby the learned Commissioner has recommended that the orders passed by the lower courts be set aside and the case be remanded to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. Jawali for fresh enquiry and decision in the matter. 2. The facts of the case are that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Jawali initiated eviction proceedings under Sections 163 of the H.P. Land revenue Act against the petitioners on the report of Patwari Halqua who vide report dated 16.3.1991 reported that the petitioners had encroached upon the Government land comprising khasra No. 1933 measuring 0-11-76 Kanal situated in Mohal Bhagwal. Tehsil Jawali. The proceedings culminated into eviction orders against the petitioners passed by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 23.3.1992. 3. Late Shri Jamit Singh and others challenged this order in appeal before the Collector Sub-Division Nurpur on the grounds that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade had no jurisdiction to try the case under section 163 of H.P. Land Revenue Act as according to petitioners, the land was given to them in exchange by the Gram Panchayat in lieu of die land given by them for construction of a School in public interest. 4. The petitioners further contended that they had not been given proper opportunity to adduce their evidence and what ever evidence was produced by them, had not been appreciated by the trial court. 5. The learned Collector after hearing both the parties and having gone through the record held that the fact of exchange of land was not established and hence rejected the appeal vide order dated 27.8.1992. 6. Dis-satisfied with this order of the Collector Nurpur dated 27.8.1992. the petitioners Shri Jamit Singh and 2 others filed an appeal that was treated as Revision Petition, by the Divisional Commissioner Kangra on the grounds that they purchased 3-14 kanals of land comprised in khasra No. 726. 727. 728. 2/3 in tikka Bhagwal. Mauza Bharmar. Tehsil Jawali near the School building and that on the request of the villagers and the Gram Panchayat land was given to School and they were allotted the present land i.e. khasra No. 1833 in exchange therewith though no Patta was stated be issued. 7. 727. 728. 2/3 in tikka Bhagwal. Mauza Bharmar. Tehsil Jawali near the School building and that on the request of the villagers and the Gram Panchayat land was given to School and they were allotted the present land i.e. khasra No. 1833 in exchange therewith though no Patta was stated be issued. 7. The learned Commissioner after hearing both the parties and going through the record is of the view that the factum of exchange is required to be investigated before eviction proceedings are held maintainable against the petitioners. 8. The parties were called upon to address their arguments on the aforesaid recommendations. The petitioner appeared in person and submitted that the recommendations made by the Commissioner he accepted and the lower courts be directed to issue Patta of exchange in favour of the petitioners. 9. The learned ADA (Rev) appearing on behalf of the state urged that the land in question belong to the State and the petitioners are encroachers on the land and there eviction there from is in order. 10. The matter has been heard and relevant record have also been gone into. The perusal of record brings out that the petitioners purchased land comprising khasra No. 726. 727 and 728 measuring 4 kanal 9 Marias in village Bhagwal. Mauza Bharmar. Tehsil Nurpur. It appears that the petitioners or their predecessor did not come into possession of this land and therefore they i.e Shri Jamit Singh and one other with a view to gain possession of the land, filed a suit for possession in the Court of Sub-Judge. Nurpur. Distt. Kangra. The suit was tried by the Sub-Judge in which a specific issue as to whether State of H.P. through Government Middle School had become the owner in possession of the land by adverse possession. The learned Sub-Judge after recording evidence answered the issue in the affirmative and returned the finding that the donation theory was wrong and the land was in possession of the School adverse to the original owners as the land was being used as School ground since 1927 onwards. Therefore the learned Sub-Judge held that said School i.e. Govt. Middle School Bharmar in possession of the land for the last 50 years and the present petitioners were held to have lost the title to the land and the School was consequently held to have acquired the title of the land by adverse possession. Therefore the learned Sub-Judge held that said School i.e. Govt. Middle School Bharmar in possession of the land for the last 50 years and the present petitioners were held to have lost the title to the land and the School was consequently held to have acquired the title of the land by adverse possession. This Judgment/decree was passed by the learned Sub-Judge on 18.2.1986. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade has kept in view the said decree while evicting the petitioners or their predecessor from the land in question. The exchange theory propounded by the petitioners or their predecessors is not believable since the land claimed to be owned by the petitioners predecessors stood lost to the afore said School by way of adverse possession. Consequently, the petitioners have no locus standie to be in possession of the land claimed under the colour of exchange by them, which exchange is merely presumptive and has not come into existence nor can it come into existence in view of the facts elucidated here-in-above. 11. For the reasons discussed here-in-above the recommendations are without any substance and petitioners are encroachers simpliciter on the land in question and therefore the recommendation are turned down. The eviction orders passed by the Assistant Collector and affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Collector are maintained and revision petition being devoid of any forces is dismissed. 12. Orders be communicated to the parties and case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.