Disposed¶32

Puran Singh Thakur v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC15 May 2026CWP/4065/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

khair tree felling Government forest Chalans jungle Dadasiba Kangra; encroachment Khasra No. 851 Tika Duhki; 31 trees admitted felled by petitioner; FIR No. 199/19 dated 11.12.2019 PS Dehra; direction to take action against all alleged encroachers within six weeks; writ petition disposed of by Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents/Competent Authority to take action in accordance with law against all alleged encroachers mentioned in their reply within six weeks; petition disposed of with these directions. ¶32

Puran Singh Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents should be directed to inquire into the felling of khair trees from Government forest in Chalans jungle under Forest Range, Dadasiba, District Kangra, H.P., and to get an F.I.R registered and taken to its logical end. +2 more

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Respondents/Competent Authority directed to take action in accordance with law against all the alleged encroachers as mentioned in their reply within six weeks from the date of the order.

¶31

Key takeaways

With the above directions, the present petition stands disposed of, and pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.), CWP No. 4065 of 2019, decided 15.05.2026: Petitioner sought directions to inquire into felling of khair trees from Government forest in Chalans jungle, Forest Range Dadasiba, District Kangra, get an FIR registered and pursued, assess loss to forest wealth, initiate civil and criminal proceedings against persons involved, and prosecute negligent officials. Respondents' reply (02.01.2023) recorded demarcation by Kanungo, Dehra Forest Division (05.12.2019), finding the petitioner himself to have encroached Khasra No. 851 of Tika Duhki and felled 31 trees (admitted in writing); a team report (Annexure R-4) found 39 trees felled (36 broad leaved, 3 Khair); Shashi Pal admitted felling 5 trees and Suresh Kumar admitted felling 3 khair trees on Government land (Khasra Nos. 625 & 633); petitioner was found in possession of Government land over 130x60 meters with solar-current fencing. FIR No. 199/19 dated 11.12.2019 had been lodged at P.S. Dehra. The Court directed respondents/Competent Authority to take action in accordance with law against all alleged encroachers mentioned in the reply within six weeks and disposed of the petition accordingly.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP Nos. 4065 of 2019 Decided on: 15.05.2026

Puran Singh Thakur

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P & others

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram

¶10

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the Petitioner:

¶12

Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advoate.

¶13

For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶14

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶15

This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:-

¶16

“a) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to act promptly and forthwith and to inquire into the matter with respect to felling of khair trees from Government forest in Chalans jungle falling under Forest Range, Dadasiba, District Kangra, H.P. and to get an F.I.R registered with further directions to the authorities concerned to take the said F.I.R to its logical end;

¶17

b) That the respondent may very kindly be directed to verify and assess the losses caused to the forest wealth of the State of Himachal Pradesh and so also the persons, who are involved in the case and to take civil and criminal proceedings against said persons as per provisions of the Act and Rules and to take the same to its logical end; c) That officers/ officials sleeping over the matter and, in fact, who have given free hand to

¶18

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶19

¶20

the miscreants and further having not bothered to take action despite complaints, may very kindly be named, booked and prosecuted for misconduct as per service jurisprudence and so also they be booked for criminal liability and with directions to the authorities to take the same to its logical end.”

¶21

2. The reply to the writ petition filed by respondents No. 1 & 5 on 02.01.2023 is to the effect that demarcation of the land in question was conducted by Kanungo of Dehra Forest Division on 05.12.2019 wherein petitioner was also associated. In terms of demarcation report, petitioner was found to have encroached upon Khasra No.851 of Tika Duhki and has also felled 31 trees which he has accepted in his statement. The petitioner was found in possession of land bearing Khasra No.851 erecting therein wire with solar current in government area over 130x60 meter. S/Sh. Shashi Pal and Suresh Kumar were also found to be in possession of government land. Relevant portion of reply reads as under:-

¶22

“4. That the demarcation of the land was conducted by the Kanungo of Dehra Forest Division on 05.12.2019 in which the complainant was also associated and as per demarcation report (Annexure R-3), the petitioner himself has encroached upon Khasra No. 851 of Tika Duhki and has also felled 31 trees which he has accepted in his statement (Annexure R-5)

¶23

That a team of officials was constituted by the Range Officer Dadasiba to check the entire forest of Challan beat of Dadasiba Range and the

¶24

¶25

team after checking the entire forests submitted its report (Annexure R-4) vide which as many as 39 trees of different species were found felled in Khasra No.851 (36 broad leaved trees and 3 Khair trees) were found felled amidst of Khasra No.625 and 633.

¶26

That during course of proceedings, the statements of present persons during the course of demarcation proceedings were recorded and S/ Sh. Puran Singh Thakur (Complainant/ petitioner) S/o Sh. Rasal Singh R/o Duhki admitted in writing that he himself had felled 31 broad leaved trees in Khasra No.851 considering that it was his own land. Similarly Sh. Shashi Pal S/o Sh. Duni Chand R/o Duhki P.P. Seul Tehsil Dadasiba, District Kangra, H.P. also admitted that he had felled 5 broad leaved trees in Khasra No.851. However, 3 khair trees were found felled amidst Khasra No.625 and 633 which was found Govt land but Sh. Suresh Kumar s/o Sh. Hans Raj R/o Duhki stated that he was in possession of that land and he had felled those 3 trees for his domestic use. Apart from above 5 khair trees were found felled in the adjoining malkiti/ private land ( Annexure R-12).

¶27

That the petitioner has been found in possession of the land bearing Khasra No.851 erecting therein the wire with solar current in the area over 130x 60 meter which is found to be Govt land. Similarly S/Sh Shashi Pal s/o Sh. Duni Chand have been found in possession of Govt land over Khasra No.851 and Suresh Kumar s/o Sh. Hans Raj R/o Duhki have been found in possession of Govt land over Khasra No.625 and 633 which they have admitted as per Annexure 5, 6 &7.

¶28

That the Range Officer Dadasiba has lodged an F.I.R No. 199/19 dated 11.12.2019 with Police Station, Dehra (Annexure R-8) and he is cooperative with the police authorities in investigation of the case.”

¶29

3. In view of above, let respondents/ Competent Authority to take action in accordance with law against

¶30

¶31

all the alleged encroachers as mentioned in their reply within six weeks from today.

¶32

4. With above directions, the present petition to stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶33

Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 15, 2026 Judge yogesh

Puran Singh Thakur v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puran Singh Thakur 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhulla Ram and Others Vs Divisional Commissioner Mandi

Banita Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others

Roshani Thakur and Ors. Vs Sudha Devi and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Vs Ritesh Chauhan

Rosy Vs State of Hp and Others

Sanjay Kuthiala and Others Vs the Mc Shimla and Another