KEHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner, Shri Kehar Singh, under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, against an order dated 03.03.2003 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur exercising the powers of Commissioner, in appeal No. 02 -2002, whereby the appeal of the present petitioner, was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on the complaint filed by respondent No. 2, the Halqua Patwari made a report dated 12.03.1998 through Halqua Kanungo that the present petitioner (Shri Kehar Singh) has encroached the Government land comprised in khasra No. 241/1 measuring 0 -13 Marlas land situated in Village Chhal -Buhla, Tehsil and District Hamirpur by way of fencing and cultivation. On receipt of the said report, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Hamirpur issued notice to the petitioner, Shri Kehar Singh under Section 163 of the Act and after hearing him, dismissed the 1 report of the filed agency on 23.02.2000, holding that the possession of the petitioner on the said land appears to be old. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade dated 23.02.2000, the present respondent No. 2 (Bidhi Singh) filed an appeal before the Collector, Subdivision, Hamirpur which was accepted and the matter remanded back to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade for fresh decision vide order dated 24.12.2001, holding that the no individual can be allowed unauthorized to make use of Government land which is Government property unless entitled otherwise. Aggrieved by this order of the Collector, dated 24.12.2001, the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur exercising the powers of Commissioner who dismissed the appeal vide order dated 03.03,2003 upholding the order passed by the learned Collector. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this revision petition before this Court.

(3.) The case was fixed hearing on admission today, I have heard the learned Counsel for petitioner as well leavened D.A. (Rev.) for State and perused the Court case file. I find that the grounds taken in the present revision petition and reiterated by the learned Counsel for petitioner are that the respondent No. 2 had no locus standi to file an appeal before the Collector and also that it was time barred. The Court below, according to the petitioner was bound to decide the matter as a civil Court as his possession over the land in question had been proved to be adverse over 40 years. Having considered the grounds taken by the petitioner and the arguments put forth by his learned Counsel, I observe that the finding of the learned Commissioner that the petitioner has encroached upon the Government land is clear. In my opinion no one can be allowed to encroach upon the Government land on the pretext of having an old possession over the same unless such a possession is duly proved before a Court of competent jurisdiction. If the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade was of the opinion that the possession of the petitioner was old, he could have adjudicated up on the matter as a Civil Court and passed a detailed, cogent and well reasoned order in support of his assumption or he could have referred the petitioner to the Civil Court. He could not have simply dropped the proceedings against the petitioner. The order passed by the Collector as well as the learned Commissioner are correct and require no interference. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and is not admitted.