Disposed

Subhash Sharma v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC17 Sept 2026CWP/1829/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought protection from eviction from government land alleging encroachment, relying on a Supreme Court order indicating the State was formulating a regularization policy. The High Court disposed of the petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation for regularization within four weeks, to be decided expeditiously within two months, and directed that no eviction shall take place until the representation is decided.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file representation for regularization within four weeks; competent authority to decide within two months; eviction stayed pending decision.

Subhash Sharma Vs State of Hp — Land Acquisition | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.1829 of 2016 Date of Decision: 17.9.2026

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Subhash Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Resp Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶4

	……...Petitioner
Versus
	…....Respondents

¶5

For the Petitioner: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. __________________________________________________________________________

¶6

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶7

Learned counsel representing the petitioner, while making available copy of order dated 20.08.2026, passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No.7537/2026 titled as Vikesh Rohta & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. states that since the State Government is contemplating a policy for which necessary approval is required from the Union of India for regularization of the encroachment, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case he is permitted to make a representation to the competent authority, praying therein for regularization of encroachment allegedly made by him on government land within a period of two weeks and till the

¶8

¶9

time, the same is not decided in accordance with law, petitioner may not be evicted pursuant to the order of eviction laid challenged in the instant proceedings.

¶10

2. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶11

3. Having carefully perused order dated 20.8.2026, passed in Vikesh Rohta’s case (supra), this Court finds that learned Advocate General has made a statement before the Hon’ble Apex Court that State Government is contemplating a policy for which necessary approval is required from the Union of India and as such, reference has already been made to the Union of India.

¶12

4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation to the competent authority within a period of four weeks, which shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months, in accordance with law. However, till the disposal of the representation, petitioner shall not be evicted in terms of the order of eviction being challenged in the instant proceedings. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of

¶13

September 17, 2026

¶14

(manjit)

¶15

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Subhash Sharma v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Sharma v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases