ORDER The revision petition under section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act has arisen out of the order passed by the Commissioner, Shimla division in revision No. 104-2003 passed on 16.5.2007, whereby the revision petition of the petitioner filed before the Commissioner has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that encroachment proceedings under section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act were initiated against the present petitioner Shri Suresh Kumar for having encroached upon Government land bearing khasra No.974/874/494/1 measuring 0-0-6 bswansis, situated in village Dadahu, sub tehsil Dadahu, Distt. Sirmour. As a sequel to the above proceedings ejectment orders were passed against the petitioner by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade Dadahu in case No.1/98 decided on 8.9.2000. This order was challenged in appeal before the Collector Nahan, Subdivision who dismissed the same vide his order dated 31.12.2002. A revision petition against this order was preferred before the Commissioner, Shimla Division, who also dismissed the same vide the impugned orders. 3. The arguments adduced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and Dy. Distt. Attorney on behalf of the State of H.P. were heard. The revision petition before this court has also been perused. The arguments adduced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the grounds mentioned in the revision petition are at variance and quite divergent. The first ground raised in the revision petition is that the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade has kept aside all the legal and relevant questions i.e. question of title/adverse possession raised before him and passed the eviction order arbitrarily without any authority. The second plea of the petitioner is with regard to the proper demarcation of the land in dispute by the competent authorities. The last plea of the petitioner is that the Assistant Collector was not competent to hear the case as per the amendment incorporated in 1989 in the H.P. Land Revenue Act. 4. In his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised the questions whether the order passed by Assistant Collector, IInd Grade is legal or whether the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade was competent to hear the case. 4. In his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised the questions whether the order passed by Assistant Collector, IInd Grade is legal or whether the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade was competent to hear the case. According to the learned counsel, prior to 1989 the law had not been amended; the Government had issued a notification dated 27.7.1985 wherein ejectment powers were given to Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, The amendment was incorporated in 1989 whereby powers of Assistant Collector, IInd Grade in encroachment cases was withdrawn. In support of his contention, the learned counsel cited the case Smt. Kanta Devi versus State of H.P. (RSA No.27 of 1999) decided on 17.3.2009. Lastly he argued that when there was plea of adverse possession, the question of title is involved; it has to be decided by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. 5. On the other hand, the learned Dy. D.A. (Revenue) has argued that the encroached land was alleged to have been allotted to the present petitioner in 1975-76 but he has failed to prove from any document that this land had been allotted to him. Further no plea of adverse possession was raised by the petitioner before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade; he had claimed that it was a case of allotment. The learned Dy. D.A. (Revenue) further argued that as per copy of jamabandi for the year 1991-92, the State of H.P. is owner in possession of the land in question. Full opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner to plead his case by the trail court. As per learned Dy. D.A. (Rev), the executive orders was withdrawn in 1997. Learned Dy. D.A. (Rev) emphasized that the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade has to first make up his mind that a question of title is involved and if he reaches such a conclusion, only then he has to send the case to Assistant Collector, 1st Grade for determination of question of title. Finally, that there are concurrent findings of three courts below and the present revision petition is not maintainable. 6. In rebuttal the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Dy. D.A. (Rev.) has not made any submission with respect to the point made by him that the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade was not competent to hear the case. But the H.P. Land Revenue Act was amended in the year 1989 published on 27.6.1989). 6. In rebuttal the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Dy. D.A. (Rev.) has not made any submission with respect to the point made by him that the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade was not competent to hear the case. But the H.P. Land Revenue Act was amended in the year 1989 published on 27.6.1989). Earlier only the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade was having powers to pass ejectment/eviction orders but not to determine question of title; this power to determine a question of title was given to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade only; officer did not have such powers before that. The Assistant Collector, IInd Grade cannot determine whether question of title is involved. As regards not raising question of title in the lower courts, learned counsel referred to the examination of witnesses which clearly shows the plea of adverse possession i.e. question of title was taken up. The courts below has not taken up/determined this plea. In support of his contention, learned counsel cited the case "Shameem Begum @ Shameem Akhatar versus State of H.P. & Others" [Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 614] wherein it has been held that it is obligatory for the court to determine the question of title. 7. I have given due consideration to the grounds raised in revision petition as well as the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the records of the lower courts below. A perusal of the case file of the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade shows that in response to the notice issued to him under section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, the petitioner submitted his written reply on 9.2.1998 wherein he denied illegal possession over the land in question and has stated that this land has been given to him by the then Tehsildar, Tehsil Renukaji, Dadahu in the year 1975-76 as a flood sufferer after he was displaced from land near the hospital. In the statement recorded before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade on 4.7.1998 the petitioner has also reiterated that this land was allotted to him verbally by the than Tehsildar in 1975-76 and he has no written order in respect of this land available with him. The witnesses produced by the petitioner before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade have also corroborated the above statement of the petitioner. The witnesses produced by the petitioner before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade have also corroborated the above statement of the petitioner. Thus, from the above it is clear that the petitioner neither in his written reply nor in his own statement or in the statements of witnesses produced by him before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade ever raised the pleas of adverse possession but has pleaded that the land was given to him verbally by the then Tehsildar being a flood sufferer. In the appeal filed before the Collector, the petitioner has raised the plea of adverse possession in his grounds of appeal, but this plea was not at all raised before the trial court. Thus, there was no occasion for the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade to determine the question of adverse possession when it was not raised before him. The Assistant Collector, IInd Grade has rightly passed the order of ejectment against the petitioner as there is no infirmity procedural or legal in his decision. 8. The next plea of the petitioner is with regard to the proper demarcation of the land in dispute by the competent authorities. A perusal of the file of the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade reveals that this plea was also not raised before him by the petitioner, therefore, the question of deciding this plea never arose before the trail court. Thus, this plea of the petitioner at this stage is not tenable and cannot be accepted. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade was not competent to hear the case as per amendment incorporated in 1989. From the perusal of the relevant records, it is manifestly clear that no such amendment as alleged, has been incorporated in the Land Revenue Act. An executive instruction has been issued by the Govt. of H.P., Department of Revenue vide letter No. Rev. 2 F(9)-1/88 dated 9th November 1989, wherein instructions regarding demarcation of private lands touching Government lands or the boundaries of another estates have been issued. In para (3) of the aforesaid letter, it has been mentioned that encroachment cases under section 163 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act should be heard and disposed of by Assistant Collector, Ist Grade (Tehsildar) only in future. In para (3) of the aforesaid letter, it has been mentioned that encroachment cases under section 163 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act should be heard and disposed of by Assistant Collector, Ist Grade (Tehsildar) only in future. But thereafter another letter in continuation of the above said letter has been issued vide letter No. Rev - D(A)2-1/97 dated 24th April, 1997 whereby above instructions have been withdrawn and Naib Tehsildars have been authorized to conduct demarcation of private lands touching the Govt. lands and where the lands to be demarcated touches or overlaps the boundaries of the another estate or boundaries between one estate and the other. It has further been clarified that the Naib Tehsildars exercising the powers of Assistant Collector, IInd Grade and conducting encroachment cases under section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act shall refer such cases where question of title or adverse possession and raised/involved, to the Tehsildar exercising the powers of Assistant Collector, Ist Grade to determine the question under sub-section 3 of Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act as if he were a civil court. As mentioned above, the petitioner has never raised the plea of adverse possession of question is title before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade. Therefore, the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade was legally right in deciding the encroachment case filed before him and has passed ejectment order which is legally sound. The Collector as well as the Commissioner have also rightly upheld the order of Assistant Collector, IInd Grade and have dismissed the appeal/revision petition filed before them. 10. In view of the forgoing reasons, I find no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the courts below. The revision petition is therefore dismissed. 11. Orders be communicated to the parties. Lower courts files be returned. The case file of this court be consigned. M.R.B.