Dismissed

Vinay Kumar v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Jan 2025LPA/465/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of writ challenging eviction orders for unauthorized occupation of government road land in Naina Chhadyar, Sirmour. The Court upheld concurrent findings of the revenue authorities and Single Judge, noting the adverse possession plea admitted non-ownership, and dismissed the appeal in limine.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vinay Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

( 2025:HHC:2257 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶3

LPA No. 465 of 2024.

¶4

Date of Decision : 8 th January, 2025.

¶5

Vinay Kumar	Versus	.…Appellant.
State of H.P.		....Respondent.
*Coram:*

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?

¶8

For the Appellant: Mr. C. N. Singh, Advocate and Dr. Nidhi Singh, Advocate.

¶9

G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶10

Challenge in the present appeal is to the order of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.2622 of 2024 on 21.10.2024 whereby the writ petition was dismissed wherein challenge had been laid to the orders dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Assistant Collector 2^nd Grade (Settlement) Naina Tikkar wherein the present appellant was held in unauthorized occupation of land comprised in Khasra No. 126/3 measuring 00-01 bighas, situated at revenue Village Naina Chhadyar, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh and he was directed to remove the unauthorized construction. The said order has

¶11

2 ( 2025:HHC:2257 )

¶12

also been upheld by the Sub Divisional Collector Pachhad at Sarahan, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh on 30.07.2022 (Annexure P-6) and also affirmed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh on 14.12.2023 (Annexure P-9), before being challenged in writ proceedings.

¶13

The concurrent findings as such have been upheld by the learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Single Judge rejected the pleas taken by the appellant that the land in question had come to him from his ancestors and that the Collector was supposed to convert himself into a Civil Court as the issue of title was involved and that the parties were required to place on record cogent and convincing evidence as such.

¶14

It is to be noticed that after receipt of notice under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, reply had been filed and the plea taken by the appellant was that the land had come to him from his ancestors and was held not be sufficient to raise the issue of title for the Collector to convert himself to a Civil Court. It is to be noticed that the report dated 27.12.2019 had been submitted by the Village Revenue Officer, Settlement Mohal, Naina Chhadyar, which was further verified by the Kanungo, Settlement for the Circle

¶15

3 ( 2025:HHC:2257 )

¶16

concerned and was rightly acted upon by the authorities as the said authorities, after having associated all the stakeholders had demarcated the land after visiting the spot and there was no occasion for the authorities concerned to disbelieve the demarcation report. It is further to be noticed that after having perused the record the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that especially jambandi for the year 2009-2010 showed that the land bearing Khasra No.126 (a part of which is denoted by Khasra No.126/3, measuring 01 bighas) belonged to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and was in possession of Forest Department and classified as “Gair Mumkin Sadak”. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the request for demarcation of land had been made during the pendency of proceedings vide application dated 08.12.2021 (Annexure P10) and while referring to the application as such has submitted that the authorities should have given an opportunity for demarcation of the land in question.

¶18

We have gone through the record of the writ petition. Apparently, the show cause notice (Annexure P-2) which was issued to

¶19

the appellant on 07.07.2020 goes on to show that the appellant was

¶20

4 ( 2025:HHC:2257 )

¶21

found to have encroached upon government land bearing Khasra No.126/3, measuring 0-02-00 Biswa in Naina Chhadyar estate Hadbast No.387, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmour, H.P. In reply filed to the said show cause notice, the stand of the appellant was that he is co-owner in possession of the land situated in adjoining Mauza Majgoen-Shamlati and the land had been inherited by the respondent from his ancestors and the boundary of the land in question is just adjoining to another revenue village Majgoen-Shamalati, Patwar Circle Nainatikker, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmour, H.P. Obviously, the show cause notice issued to the appellant was with respect to the land situated in Nanina Chhadyar and the application (Annnexure P-10) filed by the appellant for demarcation cleverly talks about the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 4/2 and 687/4 situated in adjoining revenue village which was not the subject matter of the dispute as such and falling in mauza Majhgaon Shamalati, Hadbast No.372.

¶22

Therefore, the plea as such is without any basis. Even otherwise it is to be noticed that before the Assistant Collector also, adequate time as such had been given to the appellant to get the the demarcation done and to place the same on record, but no efforts as such had been made. The Court concluded that the appellant was trying to

¶23

5 ( 2025:HHC:2257 )

¶24

elongate the proceedings as such and this aspect of the request of demarcation of the land situated in adjoining revenue village was also noticed.

¶25

In appeal, written arguments were submitted by the appellant, wherein the plea of adverse and hostile possession was taken. Once such plea is taken, it is a categorical admission on behalf of the appellant that the land does not belong to him. The plea of adverse possession can only be taken against a true owner which is the government and having done so the appellant has dug his own grave. In the absence of any documentary proof on record that the land comprised in Khasra No. 126/3 was in the ownership of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, there was no occasion for the Collector to consider the title of the appellant to the land in question which was the part of the “gair mumkin sadak” (road). Therefore, the authorities are justified in passing the eviction order.

¶26

In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the concurrent orders passed by the authorities concerned and duly upheld by the learned Single Judge do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality which would warrant us to interfere.

¶27

6 ( 2025:HHC:2257 )

¶28

Resultantly, we are constrained to dismiss the instant

¶29

appeal in limine . Ordered accordingly.

¶30

( G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice.

¶31

(Satyen Vaidya)

¶32

Judge

¶33

8^th January, 2025.

¶34

(jai)

Vinay Kumar v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vinay Kumar v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp and Anr. Vs Jan Dei

Archana Koul Sharma Vs Dhani Loan and Services (Formerly Indiabulls Consumer Ltd.)

the State of Hp through Secretary Health Vs Harsh Kumar

Rita Chaudhary Vs the State of Hp and Others

Amit Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

State of Hp and Ors. Vs Jagdish Chand