Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Hp

For the petitioners:	Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Se Advocate with Mr. Ajeet	nior Pal
	Singh Jaswal, Advocate, Amicus Curiae.	as
For the respondents:	Ms. Priyanka Chauh Deputy Advocate General, respondents No.1 to 6-State	an, for .
	Mr. Nand Lal Tha	kur,
	Advocate, for responde No.7 to 45.	nts

¶11

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral]

¶12

The present Public Interest Litigation has been initiated on the basis of a communication received regarding illegal encroachment taking place in Deorighat, Tehsil Tikkar, District, Shimla, H.P. to the extent of 2000 Bigha’s of Government land. It is submitted that a copy of complaint dated 09.07.2021 alongwith

¶13

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

2025:HHC:24728

¶15

2 -

¶16

photographs had been filed by the petitioner to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (IFS) Talland, Shimla, (Annexure P-2), highlighting inaction, as such, of Forest Department, leading to other people also to possess the Government Land.

¶17

2. Vide order dated 01.09.2022, on the reply being filed by the official respondents, it was mentioned that demarcation process had to be completed and, therefore, the encroachments could not be confirmed. However, admission of 41 cases of encroachment over Government land in Deorighat, measuring total of 15-2821 hectares (203 Bigha and 06 Biswa) had been identified. Seven persons had voluntarily vacated the encroachment of land measuring 01-47-56 hectares (19 Bigha 16 Biswa) on the spot and the land was taken in possession by the Forest Department. Thirty-four cases had been filed before Collector-cum-DFO Rohru, under H.P. Public Premises (Rent Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1971, out of which three cases had been decided.

¶18

3. As per the preliminary inquiry, out of 34 cases, encroachments in 19 cases are below 05 Bigha of land and might come under the 10 Bigha condition as

¶19

2025:HHC:24728

¶20

3 -

¶21

ruled by this Court in CWP No.1093 of 2016, wherein earlier also, issue had been raised regarding encroachment of 06-01-60 hectares (80 Bigha) by 16 persons. Report had been received from the field, and during settlement process, Misal under Kabza Najayaz had prepared in seven cases. The plantation had also been noticed during demarcation for 20-30 years old mature fruit Apple orchards and resultantly six months’ time had been prayed for to demarcate the area and identify encroachment in the affidavit dated 06.08.2022.

¶22

4. Since action was taken, resultantly, vide order dated 01.09.2022, fresh status report was directed to be filed. Apparently, private respondents No.7 to 45 aggrieved against the action of the State, filed CMP No.11930 of 2022 to be impleaded as respondents, which was allowed on 21.06.2022 and accordingly, they had taken time to file reply on 16.11.2023. Reply was directed to be placed on record vide order dated 26.02.2024. In the meantime, another reply/status report had been filed on 31.10.2022 by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Shimla Forest Circle, Shimla, wherein following details were given:-

¶23

2025:HHC:24728

¶24

4 -

¶25

“That the replying Respondents in compliance to the direction of this Hon’ble Court have till date identified 64 encroachment cases on government land by on spot demarcation of the areas mentioned in the petition and were processed as follows:

¶26

i) 07 encroachment cases were voluntarily vacated by the encroachers and government land was taken back in possession by the Forest department Annexure RI.

¶27

ii) 31 encroachment cases were decided and eviction orders have been issued by Collectorcum-DFO, Rohru under H.P. Public Premises (Rent Recovery and Eviction) Act 1871 in light of this Hon’ble Court’s ruling in CWP No.1093 of 2016. Annexure RII. Eviction in all these cases is being done by following due process of law & it may take some more time.

¶28

iii) 17 encroachments cases were challenged before Collector-cum-DFO, Rohru under H.P. Public Premises (Rent Recovery and Eviction) Act 1971 and are under trial. Annexure RIII.

¶29

iv) 09 encroachment cases were identified recently during the ongoing demarcation process which are to be challaned before Collector-cum-DFO, Rohru. Annexure R-IV.

¶30

v) That the areas mentioned in the petition involved vast areas of interspersed undemarcated protected forests (UPF) and private lands falling in two Patwar circles. Hence, the demarcation process is still ongoing and will take further time.

¶31

vi) That because of the situation as mentioned in para 2(V) above, it is prayed that more 4 months time may kindly be given to the replying respondents to complete the demarcation and eviction process .”

¶32

5. State was also directed to file response to the

¶33

reply filed by private respondents, who claimed themselves to be the owners of land in question and not encroachers, as per order dated 21.08.2024.

¶34

6. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had

¶35

noticed that there is lack of control on Settlement Officer

¶36

2025:HHC:24728

¶37

5 -

¶38

of the State since he had expressed his inability to carry out alteration or rectification of the boundaries of the land and, therefore, the response has been filed on behalf of the State to the reply filed by private respondents which was held to be without application of mind.

¶39

7. Resultantly, the Amicus Curiae was appointed vide order dated 20.11.2024.

¶40

8. Private respondents had filed an application

¶41

[CMP No.21361 of 2024] for interim relief that coercive action should not be taken and directions be also issued in this regard. Another affidavit dated 03.11.2023 was filed by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Shimla, wherein, it was admitted that 69 encroachment cases had been identified on Government land and out of which seven encroachers had voluntarily vacated the Government land and the land had been taken back in possession by the Forest Department, whereas, 55 encroachment cases were decided and eviction order had been passed by the concerned Collector-cum-DFO, Rohru and seven encroachment cases had been challenged and were under trial.

¶42

9. It was pleaded that there were vast areas of

¶43

2025:HHC:24728

¶44

6 -

¶45

interspersed Un-demarcated Protected Forests (UPF) and private lands falling in two Patwar Circles and there were difficulties as the area was snow bound and also due to incessant rains. The relevant lists of persons who had voluntarily surrendered the land and action had been taken had been given in the said affidavit.

¶46

10. In the reply-affidavit dated 14.11.2024 filed by the State countering defence of the private respondents it was mentioned that the demarcation had been conducted and the action had taken as per law and if any, measurement error had occurred, action would be taken by the Settlement Officer and the replying respondents were not competent for rectifying the boundaries of the land. It was specifically averred that respondents No.7 to 12, 14 to 32, 34, 35, 37, 39 to 41, 44 and 45 were found as encroachers of the Government land and proceedings had been started against them by the Divisional Forest Officer, Rohru.

¶47

11. Positive reply was filed on behalf of respondents No.13, 33, 36, 38, 42 and 43, who had not encroached on the Government land and the relevant lists were also attached as [Annexure R-1 and Annexure

¶48

2025:HHC:24728

¶49

7 -

¶50

R-2]. It is also mentioned that the demarcation had been conducted as per latest revenue records and if any corrections have to be made, the same has to be done by the Settlement Department.

¶51

12. The Joint Secretary (Revenue) also filed a response to the reply filed by the private respondents whereby, it has been clarified that the Jadid (Complete Revised) Settlement Operations of Up-Mohal Thanabhag, S ub-Tehsil Tikkar, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. had been conducted by the Settlement Department in the years 1981-82, in accordance with law and the procedure laid down in the Settlement Manual & Instructions issued by the higher Authority from time to time. The record of settlement operations has been handed over to the Revenue Department and the same has attained finality and presumption of truth was attached to it. The Forest Department was the custodian of the forest record of Demarcated Protected Forests (DPFs) and Reserved Forests (RFs). Only six applications for correction under Section 37 read with Section 38 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 are under consideration before the Settlement Officer Shimla,

¶52

2025:HHC:24728

¶53

8 -

¶54

which had been filed by respondents No.11, 12, 13, 15, 40 and 44. The details of the land in the occupation of the said persons and date of their applications, when

¶55

they had filed the same are reproduced as under:-

¶56

Misal No.	Name of the Applicant	New Khasra No. and area	Old Khasra No. and area	Date of the presentation of application
78/2022	Satish Kumar Panjhta & Harbans Panjhta	693 0-38-07 Hectare	457/5 5 Bigha	01.04.2022
77/2022	Miru Ram	695 0-40-28 Hectare	457/4 5 Bigha	01.04.2022
122/2022	Sohan Lal	698 0-36-46 Hectare	457/1 5 Bigha	11.07.2022
135/2022	Kulvinder Lal	1492/1379 0-05-50 Hectare 1473 0-30- 02 Hectare	410/1, 550	06.07.2022
123/22	Hari Lal	697 0-37-99 Hectare	457/1 5 Bigha	30.06.2022

¶57

13. One of the land owners, namely, Krishan Chand (now deceased) had set up a plea and requested

¶58

for the correction in the revenue entries which have been forwarded to the field official and after his death on 02.08.2001, his son Satish Chand, as such, had filed

¶59

an application for correction of revenue entries and report had been received from the field officials. The case was decided by the Settlement Collector on 18.05.2005.

¶60

2025:HHC:24728

¶61

9 -

¶62

However, Review Application had been filed by the legal representatives of Krishan Chand which had been rejected on 13.08.2010. Thereafter, revision petition was filed which was allowed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P. and directions were given to the Settlement Collector to decide the matter de novo after giving due opportunity of hearing and the matter is pending for adjudication and listed for 12.03.2025 for hearing of parties.

¶63

14. The defence of the private respondents is that there was a report of Committee, as such, of Assistant Settlement Officer, Settlement Tehsildar and Settlement Naib Tehsildar on 15.09.2023 was met by the State by taking plea that settlement operation had been completed in the years 1981-82 and the same had attained finality, therefore, the recommendation of the Committee could not be considered by the Settlement Collector. The said affidavit, as such, was filed way back on 07.12.2024.

¶64

15. Thus, in above circumstances, it is apparent that State has now clarified the factual matrix, on the fact that the revenue records had become final and on

¶65

2025:HHC:24728

¶66

10 -

¶67

the basis of demarcation, it was found that various persons who have encroached on the Government land, are only six persons, as such, respondents No.11, 12, 13, 15, 40 & 44 had resorted to their legal remedies.

¶68

16. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the State is under bounden duty to complete the exercise, as such, of evicting the persons from the land in question, on which they are encroachers in absence of having resorted to any legal remedies and the process had been finalized way back in the years 1981-82.

¶69

17. Resultantly, we dispose of the present Public Interest Litigation with directions to the official respondents to take active steps to ensure that encroachments as mentioned in the above said affidavits are duly removed and the eviction proceedings are taken to their logical ends.

¶70

18. Accordingly, we fix a time frame for the authorities to pass the ejectment orders within a period of six months from today, keeping in view the large area of land involved and the fact that it is in one of the remote areas of the State.

¶71

2025:HHC:24728

¶72

11 -

¶73

19 . Needless to say that it is the bounden duty of the State to act upon any such representation(s) received from genuine citizens who bring to their notice encroachments in the neighbourhood land which might not be easily assessable to Government officials as such, as these areas are not frequently visited. But as and when such representation(s) is/are filed, it is the bounden duty of the State to take action on them proactively. It is thus the responsibility of the State to prevent the encroachments, so that essence of discipline and concept of rule of law is maintained. If the State does not keep this principle in mind, it will face endless encroachments and the natural green cover even in the far flung area is likely to be reduced up, on account of greed and also on account of the fact that the said area is occupied by the natural flora and fona , which is valuable asset and the tendency as such to cut down the green cover and further convert it for personal gains, both for domestic or agricultural purposes and horticulture, is a common bane and it is duty of the State Government to recognize the menace and take steps actively.

¶74

20. In such circumstances, keeping in view the

¶75

2025:HHC:24728

¶76

12 -

¶77

law laid down by the Apex Court regarding the Public Interest Litigation, we have issued directions since the people of the said area can be said to be comparatively downtrodden to some extent and, therefore, it is difficult for them to reach out to seek legal redressal. Therefore, it is duty of this Court and the State Government, as such, to ensure that residents do not resort to occupying Government land by way of encroachment.

¶78

21. Needless to say that the eviction proceedings will be decided in accordance with law and taking into account the defence raised by the private respondents in individual case’s.

¶79

22. With the aforesaid observations, the present Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶80

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶81

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶82

July 23, 2025 [himani/bhardwaj]

Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Hp

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

Narender Mehta Vs the State of Hp and Others

Babita Vs State of Hp and Others

State of Hp and Another Vs All Himachal PWD Iph and Contractual Workers Union and Another

Indian Institute of Advance Study Vs S.K. Goel and Another

Deodar Heritage House Vs the UOI and Others

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Hp and Ors.