Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2008 (HP)

Het Ram v. State of Himchal Pradesh

2016-09-19

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.5.2008, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., reversing the judgment and decree dated 22.7.2006, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Theog in Civil Suit No. 95-I of 2005, whereby suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed after setting-aside the order passed by A.C.1st Grade and Collector thereafter. 2. The brief facts of the case as emerged from the plaint are that the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved with the passing of the order dated 4.5.2005, passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Theog in case No. 935/2003 and that of Collector, Sub Division, Theog dated 25.7.2005 in case No.16-VIII-2005, filed suit for declaration and injunction in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Theog, District Shimla H.P, praying therein that order dated 4.5.2005, passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Theog in case No.935/2003 and further upheld by the Collector Sub-Division, Theog vide order dated 22.7.2005 in case No.16-VIII-05, be declared wrong and illegal and defendant-State be restrained from ejecting the plaintiff from the suit land. 3. It emerge from the record that defendant-State initiated proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against the present appellant-plaintiff for alleged encroachment having been made by the present appellant-plaintiff on the Government land comprising khasra No.198, measuring 0-01-69 hectares, Khasra No.199, measuring 0-09-07 hectares and khasra No. 188/1,measuring 0-05-40 hectares, kita 3, area 0-16-16 hectares, situated in Chak Chhikhar, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, HP. It also emerge from the record that the present appellant-plaintiff constructed house over khasra No.198. The Revenue staff, after being satisfied that the appellant-plaintiff encroached upon the Government land, initiated proceedings under Section 163 of the Act, before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Theog. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, vide order dated 4.5.2005, passed order of ejectment against the appellant-plaintiff with regard to the suit land, as mentioned hereinabove. 4. The appellant-plaintiff, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the ejectment order dated 4.5.2005, filed an appeal before the Collector Sub Division, Theog, which was also dismissed on 25.7.2005. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, vide order dated 4.5.2005, passed order of ejectment against the appellant-plaintiff with regard to the suit land, as mentioned hereinabove. 4. The appellant-plaintiff, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the ejectment order dated 4.5.2005, filed an appeal before the Collector Sub Division, Theog, which was also dismissed on 25.7.2005. In the aforesaid background, plaintiff filed suit, as referred hereinabove, alleging therein that ejectment order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Theog is absolutely wrong and illegal since no opportunity of being heard was afforded to him in terms of Section 163 of the Act before passing of the ejectment order. Plaintiff claimed that pursuant to registration of the case, Assistant Collector 1st Grade, issued summons to the plaintiff, wherein, he was directed to appear before him on 19.3.2005. The plaintiff, pursuant to the aforesaid notices, put in appearance before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Theog and prayed time for filing reply. Accordingly, case was adjourned for 4.5.2005, for filing reply. The plaintiff had engaged counsel namely Sh. M.L.Chauhan, Advocate for 4.5.2005. but on 4.5.2005, Sh. M.L.Chauhan, Advocate was unable to appear before the Court on account of call of strike given by the Bar Association of India. However, plaintiff himself appeared before the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade and prayed for time for filing reply but learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade did not accede to the request of the plaintiff and without calling for reply, passed the ejectment order against the plaintiff that too without calling for records from the revenue authorities to ascertain the correctness and genuineness of the proceeding initiated by the Revenue authorities under Section 163 of the Act. 5. Defendant-State by way of written statement refuted the averments contained in the plaint by stating that the appellant-plaintiff has encroached upon the Government land, description whereof has been given hereinabove, and as such, he has no locus-standi to file the present suit. Moreover, the land in question is owned and possessed by the defendant-State. Defendant also claimed that the plaintiff unlawfully encroached upon the suit land by constructing a house as well as growing the crop on it. Moreover, the land in question is owned and possessed by the defendant-State. Defendant also claimed that the plaintiff unlawfully encroached upon the suit land by constructing a house as well as growing the crop on it. Defendant also stated in the written statement that the Revenue Field Staff visited the spot and reported the encroachment made by the plaintiff on the suit land and the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to him, passed the order of ejectment and as such, plaintiff has no right, title over the suit land and accordingly suit deserve to be dismissed with costs. Defendant also denied that the plaintiff had engaged Sh. M.L. Chauhan, Advocate for that very date because no Power of Attorney, whatsoever, authorizing Sh. M.L. Chauhan, Advocate was ever filed before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Theog. Defendant also denied that on 4.5.2005, the plaintiff appeared before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and prayed for time to file reply. Defendant also stated that there was no need to record the statements of Kanungo and Patwari before passing of ejectment order, because it stood established on record that the plaintiff is encroacher, who encroached upon the suit land by constructing the house over the same. In the aforesaid background, the defendant-State prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 6. By way of replication, plaintiff while denying the allegations made in the written statement, re-affirmed and reasserted the stand taken in the plaint. 7. Learned trial Court on the basis of aforesaid pleadings, framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the orders dated 4.5.2005 of A.C.1st Grade and dated 25.7.2005 of Collector, Theog, are wrong, illegal, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct? OPD. 6. Whether this court has no jurisdiction? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD. 8. Relief:- 8. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, quashed and set-aside the orders dated 4.5.2005 and 25.7.2005, passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, and Collector Sub Division, Theog with respect to the suit land and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. OPD. 8. Relief:- 8. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, quashed and set-aside the orders dated 4.5.2005 and 25.7.2005, passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, and Collector Sub Division, Theog with respect to the suit land and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Learned trial Court further restrained the defendant from ejecting the plaintiff from the suit land except in due course of law. 9. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.7.2006, passed by learned trial Court, respondent-State filed an appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P. by way of Civil Appeal No.95/1 of 2005, however fact remains that learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla vide judgment and decree dated 2.5.2008 accepted the appeal preferred by the respondent-State and quashed and set-aside the judgment and decree, dated 22.7.2006, passed by learned trial Court. In the aforesaid background, present appellant plaintiff being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the impugned judgment and decree, passed by learned lower Appellate Court, approached this Court by way of instant Regular Second Appeal, praying therein for quashing and setting-aside the judgment and decree dated 2.5.2008, passed by learned lower Appellate Court. 10. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred?” 11. Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned counsel representing the appellant, vehemently argued that the impugned judgment dated 2.5.2008, passed by learned lower Appellate Court is not sustainable as the same is not based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence adduced on record. Mr. Jamalta, further contended that bare perusal of the judgment and decree passed by lower Appellate Court, suggests that same is contrary to law as well as facts available on record and as such, same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. During the arguments, Mr. Jamalta, invited the attention of this Court to the impugned judgment to demonstrate that learned lower Appellate Court has not dealt with the evidence adduced on record by the plaintiff in its right perspective and passed the impugned judgment on the basis of conjectures and surmises and as such, same cannot be allowed to be sustain. 12. Mr. Jamalta, invited the attention of this Court to the impugned judgment to demonstrate that learned lower Appellate Court has not dealt with the evidence adduced on record by the plaintiff in its right perspective and passed the impugned judgment on the basis of conjectures and surmises and as such, same cannot be allowed to be sustain. 12. Mr. Jamalta, forcibly contended that learned lower Appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment has miserably failed to appreciate the actual controversy involved in the matter and as such, wrongly came to the conclusion that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff. Mr. Jamalta, strenuously argued that bare perusal of order dated 4.5.2005, passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Theog, clearly suggests that no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the plaintiff before passing of the order of ejectment and as such, order of ejectment was passed in violation of principle of natural justice and Civil Court had powers to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaring the orders passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and Collector null and void as the same were not passed after affording due opportunity of hearing, as provided under Section 163 of the Act. Mr. Jamalta, also invited the attention of Court to Section 163 of the Act to demonstrate that no order, if any, could be passed by the authority concern without affording him/her opportunity of being heard. Mr. Jamalta, forcibly contended that in the present case, it stood proved on record that that on 4.5.2005, plaintiff himself appeared before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade and prayed for time to file reply but the Assistant Collector 1st Grade instead of granting time, passed the order of ejectment against the plaintiff that too without recording the statements of the Kanungo and Patwari, which itself suggest that no proper procedure was followed by the authorities concerned at the time of passing ejectment order. Mr. Jamalta, contended that Civil Court had all the jurisdiction to see procedural irregularity, if any, committed by the revenue authorities while passing the ejectment order under Section 163 of the Act and as such, findings returned by the learned lower Appellate Court that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction is contrary to the law as well as facts on record. 13. Mr. 13. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, learned Law officer, representing the respondent-State, supported the judgment passed by learned lower Appellate Court and sated that same is based upon the correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record as well as law and as such, no interference, whatsoever, of this Court is warranted in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. Chauhan, vehemently argued that once it stands duly proved on record that the plaintiff is encroacher, who has constructed house over the Government land, no indulgence of this court is called for in the present case, rather plaintiff needs to be evicted from the Government land immediately. Mr. Chauhan, forcibly argued that in the grab of stay order obtained by the appellant-plaintiff from this Court, present appellant-plaintiff is continuing despite their being ejectment order dated 4.5.2005, passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Theog. While refuting the contention put forth on behalf of the plaintiff that Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, Mr. Chauhan, invited the attention of this Court to Section 173 of the Act to demonstrate that jurisdiction of Civil Court is completely barred under the Act, wherein complete mechanism has been provided to deal with the revenue matters. 14. Mr. Chauhan, also placed reliance on following judgments to substantiate his arguments that any ouster of jurisdiction should not be readily inferred by the Courts, rather Courts should lean in favour of such construction which would uphold jurisdiction of Civil Court. (See:- Firm of Illuri Subbayya Chetty and Sons Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1964 SC 322 , Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another AIR 1969 SC 78 , Bhanwar Lal and another v. Rajasthan Board of Muslim wakf and others(2014) 16 S.C.C.51, Babu Ram(deceased) and others v. Shri Pohlo Ram(deceased) and others AIR 1992 HP 8 , Roshan Lal versus Krishan Dev Latest HLJ 2002(hp) 197, Jagannath versus Om Prakash 2008(1) Shim. LC 45, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa(2) 2009(4) SCC 299 , Smt. Bhekhalu Devi Vs. Smt. Ram Ditti and others 2008(2) Shim.LC 412 . 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 16. In the present case, it clearly emerge that proceedings under Section 163 of the Act, was initiated against the appellant/plaintiff in the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Theog. Smt. Ram Ditti and others 2008(2) Shim.LC 412 . 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 16. In the present case, it clearly emerge that proceedings under Section 163 of the Act, was initiated against the appellant/plaintiff in the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Theog. Pursuant to aforesaid proceedings initiated in the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, summons was issued to the plaintiff, who appeared before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 19.3.2005. On 19.3.2005, Assistant Collector 1st Grade granted time to the plaintiff for filing reply and adjourned the case for 4th May, 2005. On 4.5.2005, plaintiff appeared before the Court and prayed for further time for filing reply, but learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade rejected the prayer of plaintiff for time and passed the order of ejectment against the plaintiff, which was further upheld by the Collector, who rejected the appeal preferred by the plaintiff and upheld the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Theog. 17. During the proceedings of the case, this Court had an occasion to peruse the record of the case. Careful perusal of Ex. PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D, clearly suggest that notices in proceedings under Section 163 of the Act, were served upon the plaintiff for the first time on 19th March, 2005, on which date, learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade granted time to the plaintiff to file reply on or before 4.5.2005. Similarly, perusal of Ex.P1/A i.e. order dated 4.5.2005, passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, suggests that plaintiff appeared himself before the authority and prayed for time but the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, rejected the prayer of the plaintiff for granting time and passed the order of ejectment against the plaintiff without recording the statements of Patwari and Kaunungo and other concerned authority. Similarly, perusal of order dated 25.7.2005( Ex.PW1/D), passed by the Collector, Theog District Shimla in appeal No.16-VIII- 2005 titled as Het Ram Vs. Similarly, perusal of order dated 25.7.2005( Ex.PW1/D), passed by the Collector, Theog District Shimla in appeal No.16-VIII- 2005 titled as Het Ram Vs. State of H.P under Section 14 of the Act, assailing therein order dated 4.5.2005, passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, suggest that appeal was dismissed by the Collector on the ground that ample opportunity for filing reply as well as adducing evidence in his favour was afforded to the plaintiff and as such, there is no infirmity and illegality in the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Theog. 18. Careful perusal of Ex.PW1/A, clearly suggests that only one opportunity for filing reply was granted to the plaintiff before passing the order of ejectment and as such, this Court is of the view that findings returned by the Collector, Sub Division, Theog that plaintiff was afforded ample opportunity for bringing evidence in his favour is contrary to the facts as well as documents available on record. Learned trial Court while entertaining the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiff has rightly came to the conclusion that no proper procedure, as envisaged under Section 163-A of the Act, was followed by the authorities before passing the ejectment order. Section 163(a) of the Act, specifically provides for affording all reasonable opportunity to the encroacher before passing the order of ejectment. Once, Show Cause Notice is issued against the alleged encroacher, Revenue authorities are under obligation to afford proper opportunity to the alleged encroacher to lead evidence, if any, in his favour to demonstrate that he/she has not encroached the Government land. In the instant case, as clearly emerged from the record that only one opportunity of filing reply was afforded to the plaintiff on 19.3.2005 and thereafter on 4.5.2005, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade without looking into the genuineness of the prayer having been made on behalf of the plaintiff, passed ejectment order that too without recording the statements of revenue authorities at whose behest proceedings under Section 163 of the Act, were allegedly initiated against the plaintiff. 19. 19. Careful perusal of the judgment and decree dated 22.7.2006, passed by learned trial Court, nowhere suggest that any findings qua the merits of the case with regard to encroachment, if any, by the plaintiff was returned by the Civil Court, rather Civil Court rightly restricted itself to return findings, if any, qua the procedural illegality, if any, committed by the revenue authorities while passing order under Section 163 of the Act. Since, in the present case, plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that orders dated 4.5.2005 and 27.5.2005, passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade and Collector, Theog be declared null and void on the ground that no proper procedure, as envisaged under Section 163-A of the Act, was followed before passing order of ejectment, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by learned trial Court while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff and declaring the orders dated 4.5.2005 and 25.7.2005, passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and Collector, Theog wrong and illegal. Learned trial Court while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff restrained the defendant-State from ejecting the plaintiff from the suit land except in due course of law. Since, Court below restrained itself from passing any findings qua the merits of the case, this Court sees no force in the contention put forth on behalf of the learned Law Officer appearing for the respondent-State that Civil Court exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining the Civil Suit, which was completely barred under Section 171 of the Act. 20. Admittedly, plaintiff under the Act had an alternative remedy of challenging the orders of Assistant Collector and Collector before the Divisional Commissioner but since statutory authorities, as referred above, failed to act in conformity with the basic procedure of provision, as envisaged under Section 163-A of the Act, plaintiff was not estopped from availing the remedy of filing the civil suit praying therein for declaring orders passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and Collector null and void. 21. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court is unable to accept the reasoning given by learned lower appellate Court while accepting the appeal of the defendant-State that since plaintiff had an alternative remedy to agitate his dispute before the authorities by filing revision etc. in terms of the provisions contained under the Act, Civil Court had no jurisdiction. in terms of the provisions contained under the Act, Civil Court had no jurisdiction. Undisputedly, jurisdiction of Civil Court to deal with such matters is expressly barred under Section 171 of the Act but as has been discussed in detailed, learned trial Court has restricted itself to return findings qua the procedural aspect. Learned trial Court has only concluded that while passing the impugned order, Assistant Collector 1st Grade failed to afford due opportunity of being heard to the plaintiff, as envisaged under Section 163(a) of the Act. Moreover, Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court should not be readily inferred, rather Courts should lean in favour of such construction which would uphold jurisdiction of Civil Court. Perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, suggests that trial Court has rightly decided the issue of jurisdiction. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in M.P. Electricity Board, Jabalpur versus Vijaya Timber Co. 1997(1) SCC 68 . The relevant para-9 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “9. It is well settled that the exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court cannot be readily inferred and the normal rule is that civil courts have jurisdiction to try all the suits of a civil nature except those of which cognizance by them is either expressly or impliedly excluded. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhulabhai etc. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 78:- “ The following principles regarding exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court may be laid down:- (1) Where the statute gives finality to the orders of the special tribunals the civil courts’ jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil Court would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. (2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the Court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provide may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court. (2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the Court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provide may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court. Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or not. (3) Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as ultra vires cannot be brought before Tribunals constituted under that Act. Even the High Court cannot go into that question on a revision or reference from the decision of the Tribunals. (4) When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality of any provision is to be challenged, a suit is open. A writ of certiorari may include a direction for refund if the claim is clearly within the time prescribed by the Limited Act but it is not a compulsory remedy to replace a suit. (5) Where the particular Act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in excess of constitutional limits or illegally collected, a suit lies. (6) Questions of the correctness of the assessment apart from its constitutionality are for the decision of the authorities and a civil suit does not lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to be final or there is an express prohibition in the particular Act. In either case the scheme of the particular Act must be examined because it is a relevant enquiry. (7) An exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply: Case law discussed.” 23. Similarly, Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhanwar Lal and another v. Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf and others (2014)16 SCC 51 ; reiterated that civil courts can try all civil suits except which are expressly or impliedly barred. Similarly, Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhanwar Lal and another v. Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf and others (2014)16 SCC 51 ; reiterated that civil courts can try all civil suits except which are expressly or impliedly barred. In the aforesaid case, Hon’ble Apex Court again reiterated that any ouster of jurisdiction should not be readily inferred by Courts and Courts would lean in favour of such construction which would uphold jurisdiction of Civil Court, but if the party who claimed jurisdiction of Civil Court succeed in establishing that there is specific bar under particular Act, Civil Court may not have jurisdiction. The relevant para-26 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “26. It would also be profitable to refer to that part of the judgment where the Court gave guidance and the need for a particular approach which is required to deal with such cases. In this behalf the Court specified the modalities as under :-(Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun MirzaWakf, (2010) 8 SCC 726 ) “11. Before we take up the core issue whether the jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain and adjudicate upon disputes regarding eviction of (sic from) wakf property stands excluded under the Wakf Act, we may briefly outline the approach that the Courts have to adopt while dealing with such questions. 12. The well settled rule in this regard is that the civil courts have the jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except those entertainment whereof is expressly or impliedly barred. The jurisdiction of the civil courts to try the suits of civil nature is very expansive. Any statute which excludes such jurisdiction is, therefore, an exception to the general rule that all disputes shall be triable by a civil court. Any such exception cannot be readily inferred by the courts. The court would lean in favour of a construction that would uphold the retention of jurisdiction of the civil courts and shift the onus of proof to the party that asserts that the civil court’s jurisdiction is ousted. 13. Even in cases, where the statute accords finality to the orders passed by the Tribunals, the court will have to see whether the Tribunal has the power to grant the reliefs which the civil courts would normally grant in suits filed before them. If the answer is in the negative, exclusion of the civil court’s jurisdiction would not be ordinarily inferred. If the answer is in the negative, exclusion of the civil court’s jurisdiction would not be ordinarily inferred. In Rajasthan SRTC Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa(2) (2009) 4 SCC 299 , a three Judge Bench of this Court observed:- “There is a presumption that a civil Court has jurisdiction. Ouster of civil court’s jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred. A person taking a plea contra must establish the same. Even in a case where the jurisdiction of a civil court is sought to be barred under a statute, the civil court can exercise its jurisdiction in respect of some matters particularly when the statutory authority or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction.” 24. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion made hereinabove, the judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate Court is quashed and set-aside. However, keeping in view the fact that proceedings under Sections 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, is pending for considerable time, it would be in the interest of justice, if concerned authority (Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Theog) is directed to conclude the same within the period of six months from the date of the judgment passed by this Court. An authenticated copy of this judgment, be sent to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Theog, for compliance. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.