Disposed

Sandeep Thakur v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Dec 2024CWP/7745/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court found that a liquor vend permitted at Sidhpur was located on encroached forest land. The Court directed the Forest Department to conclude proceedings against the encroacher within two months and directed the Excise Department to shift the vend from the forest area to a suitable alternative location.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to Forest Department to conclude proceedings within two months and to Excise Department to shift the liquor vend from forest land.

Sandeep Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others — Environment and Pollution | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:13784

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.7745 of 2024 Date of Decision: 09.12.2024

¶4

_____________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Thakur ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Mr. Praveen Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.7.

¶5

___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶6

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

¶7

following main reliefs:

¶8

“A. That respondent department be directed to close L-14 Sidhpur which has been opened in an Forest area, i.e. Departmental Protected area Sidhpur under DFO Rampur (Forest Section Narkana) District Shimla in an illegal and unauthorized encroached Shed / Dhatra made over Forest land.

¶9

B. That officials of respondent Excise & Forest department who permitted opening of Excise Vend on Forest Land and concerned Forest Officials who despite information failed to take action against encroachment on Forest land be punished as per law.”

¶10

2024:HHC:13784

¶11

¶12

Private-respondent No.7-Mr. Vinod Sharma herein came to be allotted Retail Excise Vend L-14 for the year 2024-25 at village Kholighat, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, but subsequently afore liquor vend on the request made by private-respondent came to be shifted to place called Sidhpur.

¶13

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that Department of Excise fully knowing that place where liquor vend, detailed hereinabove, is proposed to be shifted falls under demarcated protected forest, granted permission to shift vend from Kholighat to Sidhpur.

¶14

Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply. Reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1, 3, 5 and 6 clearly suggests that initially Retail Excise Vend L-14 was granted in favour of the respondent No.7 for location namely Kholighat, but subsequently on his request, afore liquor vend came to be shifted to place called Sidhpur. Reply filed on behalf of afore respondents is conspicuously silent about allegation levelled by petitioner that liquor vend shifted to place called Sidhpur is in the forest area. Reply filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 4 clearly reveals that as per demarcation report of Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil

¶15

2024:HHC:13784

¶16

¶17

Nankhari dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure R-III), 200 meter stretch of DPF Sidhpur/Sidhpura, whereupon the Retail Excise Vend is being run, is not present in any of the revenue records. Though, as per afore reply, it has been recommended in the report that area needs to be settled through the Settlement Department, but if reply is read in its entirety, it clearly reveals that there is no private land in Sidhpur and the area is a forest area.

¶18

Having taken note of construction made in the forest area by the person namely Thakur Dass, from whom private-respondent has taken accommodation on rent, Forest Department has already instituted case against Thakur Dass under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 and notice under Section 4 of afore Act already stands issued to aforesaid person by DFO-cum-Collector, Kotgarh (Annexure R-5). Reply filed by Excise Department clearly reveals that it had proceeded to accord permission to private-respondent No.7 to run liquor vend at place called Sidhpur on the basis of rent agreement produced by privaterespondent No.7 with regard to his having entered into agreement inter se him and Thakur Dass, whereby afore Thakur Dass agreed to make available space at place called Sidhpur. Apart from above, Gram Panchayat of the area concerned also recommended for opening the liquor vend at place called Sidhpur. There is no specific reply to the

¶19

2024:HHC:13784

¶20

¶21

allegation of the petitioner that liquor vend is being run in forest area. Reply filed on behalf of respondent No.7 is also on similar lines as has been filed by Department of Excise, wherein he has stated that encroachment, if any, on the forest land has been made by person namely Thakur Dass, whereas he had taken the accommodation at village Sidhpur from person namely Thakur Dass on rent.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner herein, who is also having liquor vend, though was aggrieved on account of opening of liquor vend by respondent No.7 in the nearby vicinity, but now since it has come on record that the place in Sidhpur, where liquor vend has been permitted to be shifted, is a forest area, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner to order removal of the same.

¶23

True it is that the Excise Department having taken note of rent agreement executed inter se respondent No.7 and person namely Thakur Dass proceeded to accord permission for shifting of Retail Excise Vend from Kholighat to Sidhpur in forest area, but once it has come on record that place at Sidhpur, where liquor vend is operating, is a forest area and same has been encroached by person namely Thakur Dass, it otherwise ought not have granted permission to respondent No.7 to run liquor vend from aforesaid place, rather in that

¶24

2024:HHC:13784

¶25

¶26

regard, prayer for shifting made by respondent No.7 ought to have been rejected.

¶27

Though private-respondent No.7 herein cannot be said to be an encroacher, rather proceedings in that regard can only be initiated against person namely Thakur Dass, but having noticed factum of encroachment, which is apparent from the reply filed by the Forest Department, this Court cannot shut its eyes, rather direction is required to be issued for conclusion of proceedings, already initiated against encroacher namely Thakur Dass, expeditiously.

¶28

While referring to the reply filed by the Forest Department, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General argued that appropriate proceedings under appropriate provision of law already stand initiated against the person namely Thakur Dass and same shall be taken to its logical end expeditiously. Since it is not in dispute that steps already stand initiated against encroacher namely Thakur Dass, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and same are disposed of with the direction to DFO-cum-Collector, Kotgarh to conclude the proceedings against encroacher Thakur Dass expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months and in the meantime, Excise Department, having taken note of factum of encroachment, as detailed hereinabove, may also take appropriate steps for shifting of liquor vend from Sidhpur to some other suitable

¶29

2024:HHC:13784

¶30

¶31

place, so that no illegal activity is carried out in the forest area.

¶32

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶33

December 09, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge

Sandeep Thakur v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Thakur v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Neeraj Singh and Co. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Chemists and Druggists Association Vs State of Hp and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs Gita Ram Tegta

Anoop Katoch Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Bholeshwar Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Neelaksh Lakhanpal and Others Vs State of Hp and Another