Allowed¶22

Bhag Chand v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC13 Jul 2026CWP/16477/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 163 H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954; demarcation; tatima verification; three pucca points; encroachment; ejectment; Assistant Collector First Grade; SDO(C) Padhar; Divisional Commissioner Mandi; Financial Commissioner (Appeals); Khasra No. 54/2; Mohal Chehar/594; Tehsil Padhar; District Mandi; remand; CWP No. 16477/2024; Bhag Chand v. State of H.P.; decided 13.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 25.11.2021 of respondent No.2-Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P. (Annexure P-6) set aside; said authority directed to consider and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law; parties directed to appear before it at Shimla on 31.07.2026; pending application(s) disposed of accordingly. ¶22

Bhag Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the demarcation statedly conducted by the respondents on 07.03.2017 and the report prepared pursuant thereto on 14.03.2017 were in accordance with the prescribed procedure. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The record produced pursuant to the Court's direction prima facie reflects that during the so-called fresh demarcation conducted on 07.03.2017, only the tatima of the previous demarcation had been verified; the record does not give the impression that any fresh demarcation of the subject land was conducted in accordance with law by identifying three pucca points.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

An alleged demarcation that only verifies the tatima cannot be termed a demarcation in accordance with law in terms of the order dated 18.01.2017 passed by the Collector, Sub-Division Padhar, District Mandi, whereunder a fresh demarcation was directed to be conducted.

¶21

Key takeaways

The Financial Commissioner, in the impugned order dated 25.11.2021, though noticed that the land in dispute had been demarcated in the presence of the petitioner on 07.03.2017, did not adjudicate the issue raised by the petitioner as to the veracity of the so-called demarcation.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Eviction proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 concerning Khasra No. 54/2, Mohal Chehar/594, Tehsil Padhar, District Mandi. After the first round of litigation ended in a remand (order dated 18.01.2017 of the Collector, Sub-Division Padhar directing fresh demarcation), the purported re-demarcation of 07.03.2017 merely verified the tatima of the earlier demarcation, without a fresh demarcation identifying three pucca points. The successive ejectment, appellate and revisional orders culminating in the Financial Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 25.11.2021 rested on that exercise; the Financial Commissioner noticed, but did not adjudicate, the petitioner's challenge to the veracity of the demarcation. Allowing the writ petition, the High Court set aside the order dated 25.11.2021 and remanded the matter to the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision in accordance with law, fixing appearance of the parties for 31.07.2026.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 16477/2024 Decided on: 13.07.2026

¶3

Bhag Chand …..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. & Ors.

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

………………………………………………………………………………… Coram

¶8

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua , Judge.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioner: Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

¶10

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J.

¶11

Proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 were initiated against the petitioner with respect to the land comprised in Khasra No. 54/2 area measuring 01-00-05 bigha, situated in Mohal Chehar/594, Tehsil Padhar, District Mandi, H.P. Vide order dated 19.04.2016, the petitioner was ordered to be evicted by the Assistant Collector First Grade. A fine of Rs.10,000/- was also imposed upon him. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sub Division Padhar. The appeal was decided on 18.01.2017. The case was remanded to the Assistant

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

Collector First Grade, Padhar, with a direction to demarcate the land afresh and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law.

¶15

According to the respondents, after remand of the case, the land was re-demarcated on 07.03.2017 in the presence of the petitioner; This report again established the encroachment made by the petitioner over the area in question. Accordingly, a fresh show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, who filed his reply thereto on 03.06.2017. In the reply, the petitioner denied the encroachment and took the defence that the land had not been demarcated in accordance with law. After completion of the pleadings and evidence, the Assistant Collector First Grade, vide order dated 22.07.2017, held that the respondents-State had rightly detected the encroachment made by the petitioner over the land in question. An ejectment order was accordingly passed. Petitioner's appeal against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Padhar, District Mandi, on 26.02.2018. The revision petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, on 14.10.2019. The second revision petition preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed on 25.11.2021 by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh.

¶16

In the above background, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition assailing the orders passed by the revenue authorities against him.

¶17

¶18

2. The main contention urged for the petitioner is that the demarcation statedly conducted by the respondents on 07.03.2017 and the report prepared pursuant thereto on 14.03.2017 were not in accordance with the prescribed procedure. In view of petitioner's grievance, vide order dated 02.07.2026 passed in this writ petition, the respondents were directed to produce the record of the demarcation conducted by them on 07.03.2017, as reported on 14.03.2017.

¶19

3. Learned Deputy Advocate General produced the record during hearing of the case. The record, prima facie , reflects that during the so-called fresh demarcation conducted on 07.03.2017, only the tatima of the previous demarcation had been verified. The record does not give the impression that any fresh demarcation of the subject land was conducted in accordance with law by identifying three pucca points before proceeding further in the matter. Admittedly, the first round of litigation had culminated in the order dated 18.01.2017 passed by the Collector, Sub-Division Padhar, District Mandi, H.P., remanding the case to the Assistant Collector First Grade with a direction to demarcate the land again. The Financial Commissioner, in the impugned order dated 25.11.2021, though noticed that the land in dispute had been demarcated in the presence of the petitioner on 07.03.2017, but did not adjudicate the issue raised by the petitioner as to the veracity of so-called demarcation. The alleged demarcation that only verifies tatima, prima-facie, cannot be termed as a demarcation in

¶20

¶21

accordance with law in terms of the order passed by the Collector, SubDivision Padhar, District Mandi, on 18.01.2017, whereunder a fresh demarcation was directed to be conducted.

¶22

4. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The

¶23

impugned order passed by respondent No.2-Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P., on 25.11.2021 (Annexure P-6) is set aside. The said authority is directed to consider and decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before respondent No.2-Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P., at Shimla on 31.07.2026 .

¶24

In view of above, the instant petition to stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶25

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶26

13^th July, 2026 (rohit)

Bhag Chand v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhag Chand v. the 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anjana Rohal Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Shiva Educational Society Vs the State of Hp and Another

Desh Raj Vs Rohan Chand Thakur and Ors.

Lekh Raj Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rama Devi and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Anil Chona Vs the Hptdcl and Another