Disposed¶20

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Aug 2025CWP/5233/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP 5233 of 2020, Himachal Pradesh High Court, decided 21.08.2025 by Justice Ajay Mohan Goel. Challenge to eviction under Section 163, H.P. Land Revenue Act; petitioner relied on Vimla Devi (CWP 2559 of 2018) status quo order; State cited Punam Gupta (CWP 1028 of 2022, 05.08.2025) striking down regularization policy. Petition disposed: Section 163 proceedings to conclude per law with opportunity to file reply; no merits observation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; eviction proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act directed to be taken to their conclusion in accordance with law after opportunity to the petitioner to file reply, with no observation on merits; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, disposed of accordingly. ¶20

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the initiation of eviction proceedings against the petitioner under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act was bad in view of the Division Bench order in CWP No. 2559 of 2018 (Vimla Devi) directing status quo to be maintained pending decision on regularization of such encroachments. +1 more

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of with the direction that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 163 of the Act be taken to their conclusion in accordance with law, after affording appropriate opportunity to the petitioner to file his reply, if not already filed.

¶24

Key takeaways

The Court clarified that it has made no observation on the merits of the case and that the proceedings under Section 163 of the Act are to be decided on their own merit.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition assailing eviction proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act vide Annexure P-5 dated 03.09.2020. The petitioner contended the proceedings were barred because a Division Bench of the High Court in CWP No. 2559 of 2018 (Vimla Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.) had ordered status quo to be maintained for similarly situated encroachers till a final decision on regularization. The State responded that the Regularization Policy had been struck down as bad in law by the Division Bench in CWP No. 1028 of 2022 (Punam Gupta & anr.) on 05.08.2025, leaving no subsisting policy. Disposing of the petition, the Single Judge (Ajay Mohan Goel, J.) directed that the Section 163 proceedings be taken to their conclusion in accordance with law after affording the petitioner an opportunity to file his reply, clarifying that no observation was made on the merits and the proceedings would be decided on their own merit. Pending miscellaneous application(s) stood disposed of accordingly. (Decided 21.08.2025)

¶1

2025:HHC:28370

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 5233 of 2020 Decided on : 21.08.2025

Ramesh Kumar.

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Coram

¶10

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the petitioner : Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General.

¶12

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶13

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the eviction proceedings initiated against the petitioner in terms of Annexure P-5, dated 03.09.2020, under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

¶14

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the initiation of said proceedings was bad in the light of the fact that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court

¶15

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

¶17

2025:HHC:28370

¶18

in CWP No. 2559 of 2018, titled Vimla Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 17.12.2018, along-with other connected matter (Annexure P-3), was pleased to order in the cases of persons similarly situated as the petitioner that as the State Government was to take decision with regard to regularization of such like encroachments, therefore, till a final decision in this regard is taken, status quo be maintained by the parties, of the suit property.

¶19

On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General, submitted that the Policy, that was framed by the Government in this regard and which was subject matter of CWP No. 1028 of 2022, titled Punam Gupta & anr. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., has been disposed of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on 05.08.2025 and in terms whereof, this Policy of Regularization has been held to be bad in law. He further submitted that in the light of this development, the Government as of now is not ceased with any Policy vis-a-vis the regularization of encroachments.

¶20

Taking into consideration the submission of learned Assistant Advocate General, this petition is disposed of with the

¶21

¶22

2025:HHC:28370

¶23

direction that let the proceedings which were initiated against the against the petitioner under Section 163 of the Act, be taken

¶24

to their conclusion, in accordance with law, after affording appropriate opportunity to the petitioner to file his reply, if not already filed. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case and proceedings under Section 163 of the Act be decided on its own merit. Pending

¶25

miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶26

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶27

August 21, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Davinder Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Pushpa Devi Roach Vs the State of Hp and Others

Parkash Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rajender Kumar Vs Managing Director Hrtc and Others

Pyari Devi Vs Lajja Ram and Others

Manoj Kumar Vs Aashima Kumari and Others