Discretion Vested In Revenue Officer To Convert Itself As A Civil Court To Decide Plea Of Adverse Possession: HP HC
đź“Ś Principle:
Revenue officers do not have the jurisdiction or discretion to act as civil courts in deciding pleas of adverse possession.
🟤 Explanation:
1. Role and Jurisdiction of Revenue Officers
Revenue officers are entrusted primarily with administrative and revenue-related functions, like maintaining land records, mutation, and collection of land revenue.
Their authority is limited to administrative matters and does not extend to adjudicating civil disputes such as adverse possession claims.
2. Nature of Adverse Possession
Adverse possession is a civil right that involves factual and legal complexities:
Continuous and hostile possession
Possession for a statutory period
Intention to possess as owner
These issues require a detailed and thorough examination of evidence, witness testimonies, and legal principles.
3. Why Revenue Officer Cannot Decide Adverse Possession
Revenue officers lack the powers of a civil court to conduct a full-fledged trial.
Adverse possession claims often involve title disputes, rights of ownership, and long-term possession, which are beyond the scope of revenue adjudication.
Allowing revenue officers to decide such pleas risks conflicting decisions and undermines the role of civil courts.
4. No Discretion to Transform Jurisdiction
The discretion vested in revenue officers relates to administrative decision-making, not to converting their role into that of a civil court.
Any attempt to decide adverse possession claims is ultra vires (beyond powers) and liable to be quashed by higher courts.
🧑‍⚖️ Case Illustration: Rajender Singh v. Revenue Officer (Hypothetical HP HC case)
In Rajender Singh v. Revenue Officer, the revenue officer passed an order dismissing a mutation claim on the ground that the petitioner’s possession was adverse and barred by limitation.
The petitioner challenged this order, contending that the revenue officer had no jurisdiction to decide adverse possession claims.
Court’s Reasoning:
“Revenue officers act within a well-defined administrative domain and do not possess the judicial authority to try questions of title or adverse possession.”
“A plea of adverse possession involves complicated factual and legal issues which require a trial, examination of evidence, and cross-examination — processes not available in revenue proceedings.”
“The discretion of the revenue officer is confined to revenue matters and does not empower it to transform itself into a civil court to decide ownership disputes or adverse possession pleas.”
Judgment:
The Court quashed the revenue officer’s order on the adverse possession ground.
Held that such disputes are exclusively within the jurisdiction of civil courts.
Directed the parties to seek remedy through appropriate civil litigation.
⚖️ Broader Judicial Principle:
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Revenue officer’s powers are administrative, not judicial for title disputes |
| Adverse Possession | Requires civil court trial with evidence and legal analysis |
| Discretion Limits | Cannot convert administrative authority into civil judicial power |
| Proper Forum | Civil courts alone can decide adverse possession claims |
đź“ť Conclusion:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s stance is clear that the discretion vested in revenue officers does not extend to deciding civil issues such as adverse possession. This protects the jurisdictional boundaries between administrative and judicial forums, ensuring that:
Land disputes involving adverse possession are decided with full judicial procedure.
Parties are not denied their right to a fair trial.
The sanctity of civil court jurisdiction is preserved.
This separation upholds justice, fairness, and the rule of law in property-related disputes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments