Hoshiar Chand and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

For the petitioner: Mr. Lovneeesh Kanwar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

¶11

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J.

¶12

Notice. Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate

¶13

General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶14

Keeping in view the grievance of the petitioners, trajectory of the case, documents appended with the writ petition and the order being passed hereinafter, there is no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents. The matter has been heard accordingly at this stage.

¶15

2 . Petitioners are recorded as owners in possession over Khasra Nos.53,57, 69, 78, 295, 314, 316, 317, 318, 319, 1123, 1138,

¶16

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

¶17

2

¶18

( 2026:HHC:16003 )

¶19

1316, 1456/1317 measuring 24-10-04 bighas in Village Bushar, Patwar Circle Matlehar District Mandi.

¶20

Khasra Nos. 54, 55, 56, 58, 59/1, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 72, 88 and 433, measuring 13-15-04 bighas, situated in Village Bushar, Patwar Circle Matlehar, District Mandi, are recorded in the ownership of the State of Himachal Pradesh and in possession of the Education Department. Initially, a Primary School was being run over this land under the aegis of the State Education Department, which was subsequently upgraded to a Middle, High and Senior Secondary School, Mundroo.

¶21

3. It appears that certain parcels of the aforesaid land owned by the petitioners adjoin the land owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh in possession of the Education Department. From the documents on record, it emerges as an admitted case that the petitioners had raised certain construction years ago over some portion of the aforesaid Khasra numbers, which, were in their possession under the projected bonafide belief of being the legitimate owners thereof. During demarcation carried out years later, the land, however, was found to be in the ownership of the respondents-State. Similarly, the State Education Department raised construction from time to time over certain land parcels believing itself to be the owner thereof w.e.f. the year 2005 onwards, but in the demarcation

¶22

3

¶23

( 2026:HHC:16003 )

¶24

conducted years later, the land was found in the ownership of the petitioners.

¶25

There are several documents on record reflecting that the State Education Department, as well as the petitioners, had consented to exchange the ownership of the land in their respective possession but belonging to the other side, in view of the construction having already been raised thereupon by them. It also appears that the Director Higher Education had deliberated on the proposal for mutual transfer of the aforesaid parcels of land. In terms of the annexures placed on record, the State Education Department had written to its higher authorities seeking permission for exchange of the land with the petitioners, assigning reasons and justification for such transfer in larger public interest. The aforesaid communications forwarded to the higher authorities, are still stated to be pending consideration without any concrete result.

¶26

An office communication originated on 24.10.2025 (Annexure P-41), from the office of respondent No.1 directing respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, to take necessary action in terms of office letter dated 21.03.2023 on the subject of mutual transfer of land. As per office letter dated 21.03.2023, the Administrative Department was advised to request the concerned Collector, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, to initiate eviction proceedings in the matter against the petitioner and for vesting the

¶27

4

¶28

( 2026:HHC:16003 )

¶29

structure of the encroacher in the State for utilization of the same by the school. Ironically, while the respondents sought eviction of the petitioners from the land owned by the State and in possession of petitioners’, they were apparently unwilling to give up the land belonging to the petitioners but in possession of the State Education Department. Be that as it may.

¶30

The writ record also refers to an office communication dated 20.02.2018 issued by the Director Higher Education, in response to an office letter of the Revenue Department regarding transfer of the Government land in view of the ban imposed under the Nautor Rules vide a notification dated 24.08.1987. In this regard, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners invited attention to office letter dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure P-43) issued by the State Revenue Department, suggesting that even in cases involving direct violation of notification dated 24.08.1987, whereby the State had imposed ban on exchange of land under the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Rules, 1968, if the exchange of land is mandatory in public interest under any unavoidable or specific circumstances, department should not take decision at its own level, rather, such cases are required to be referred to the Revenue Department for consideration and final decision.

¶31

4. Instant is a case where private land owned by the petitioners is sought to be exchanged with the land owned by the

¶32

5

¶33

( 2026:HHC:16003 )

¶34

State Government and presently in possession of the Education Department and vice versa. As per documents on record, the request for mutual exchange of land has come from both sides i.e. the petitioners as also the State Education Department. The reason being that, for decades together, the petitioners had bona fide believed themselves to be owners of certain land parcels, which later turned out to be in the ownership of the State Government, but by passage of time constructions had already been raised thereon by the petitioners. Similarly, the State Education Department, with due approval of the higher authorities, raised constructions over land presumed to be belonging to the State, which has now turned out to be in the ownership of the petitioners. Permitting such exchange of land in public interest calls for consideration by the competent authority.

¶35

Keeping in view the aforesaid factors, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the entire case of exchange of land after duly associating all the stakeholders, including the petitioners/their authorized representatives and the State Education Department. An appropriate decision, in accordance with law, facts and keeping in view the public interest, be taken within a period of eight weeks. The decision so taken be communicated to the concerned parties. Till such time, no coercive action shall be taken by the authorities against the petitioners qua the land in

¶36

6

¶37

( 2026:HHC:16003 )

¶38

question. All pending miscellaneous application(s) to also stand

¶39

disposed of.

¶40

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶41

12^th May, 2026(rohit)

Hoshiar Chand and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hoshiar Chand and Others 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

Chander Pal Aggarwal and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Makholi Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others

Mahender Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Priya Saklani and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sunil Verma and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Vinod Kumar Chopra Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another