Jagdish vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

These all three petitions, for involvement of common question of law and similar facts, are being decided with this common judgment.

CWP No.2317 of 2025

(a) Petitioner Jagdish has been ordered to be evicted from land Charagah Darakhtan, comprised in Khasra No.1090/2/6/1, situated in Village Sarahan, P.O. Baragaon, Patwar Circle Dhalla, Tehsil Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P., vide order dated 20.02.2024, passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade-cum-Tehsildar, Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P., in case No.04/2022, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Jagdish, initiated under Section 163 of Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘H.P. L.R. Act’) on the report of Patwari dated 30.09.2021 and report of Field Kanungo Baragaon bearing No.197 dated 30.09.2021.

(b) The aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner by filing Appeal No.14-I/2024, titled as Jagdish vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, before Collector-cum-SDM, Sub Division, Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P., which was dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2024.

(c) Petitioner Jagdish had further assailed the aforesaid order by preferring Revision Petition No.61/2025, before Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh, which was dismissed on 30.01.2025.

CWP No.2318 of 2025

(a) Petitioner Balwant has been ordered to be evicted from land Charagah Darakhtan, comprised in Khasra No.1090/2/6/2 and Khasra No.1034/4/1, situated in Village Sarahan, P.O. Baragaon, Patwar Circle Dhalla, Tehsil Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P., vide order dated 20.02.2024, passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade-cum-Tehsildar, Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P., in case No.05/2022, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Balwant , initiated under Section 163 of H.P. L.R. Act, on the report of Patwari dated 30.09.2021 and report of Field Kanungo Baragaon bearing No.197 dated 30.09.2021.

(b) The aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner by filing Appeal No.16-I/2024, titled as Balwant vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, before Collector-cum-SDM, Sub Division, Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P., which was dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2024.

(c) Petitioner Balwant had further assailed the aforesaid order by preferring Revision Petition No.63/2025, before Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh, which was dismissed on 30.01.2025.

CWP No.2319 of 2025

(a) Petitioner Raj Kumari has been ordered to be evicted from land Charagah Darakhtan, comprised in Khasra No.1020/1/4/2/1, Khasra No.1090/2/3, Khasra No.1090/2/2, Khasra No.1090/2/4 and Khasra No.1090/2/5, situated in Village Sarahan, P.O. Baragaon, Patwar Circle Dhalla, Tehsil Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P., vide order dated 20.02.2024, passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade-cum-Tehsildar, Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P., in case No.03/2022, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumari, initiated under Section 163 of H.P. L.R. Act, on the report of Patwari dated 30.09.2021 and report of Field Kanungo Baragaon bearing No.199 dated 30.09.2021.

(b) The aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner by filing Appeal No.15-I/2024, titled as Raj Kumari vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, before Collector-cum-SDM, Sub Division, Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P., which was dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2024.

(c) Petitioner Raj Kumari had further assailed the aforesaid order by preferring Revision Petition No.62/2025, before Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh, which was dismissed on 30.01.2025.

The petitioner(s) have filed present writ petition(s) being aggrieved by above referred even dated orders passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade-cum-Tehsildar, Kumarsain, Collector, Sub Division-cum-SDM-Kumarsain and Financial Commissioner (Appeals) H.P., with submissions that land wherefrom petitioner(s) have been ordered to be evicted is a part of large chunk of Government land comprised in Khasra No.1090 which is an unprotected forest in the revenue records, and in the latest Jamabandi for the year 2018-19 possession of this land has been entered of the land holders of Village Sarahan, being unprotected forest this land is not a forest land, and the land holders have absolute right in the use of the land for all purposes related to agriculture such as right of grazing of animals, fuel wood use of grass etc., and these rights are absolute and could not be diluted or extinguished.

Further case of the petitioner(s) is that eviction proceedings were initiated against them on the basis of complaint made by one Jagjiwan Ram, resident of the same Village, who has also encroached upon portion of land comprised in Khasra No.1090, whereas, he is not having any land in his own name adjacent to Khasra No.1090, but at a distance of about ½ kilometer from the boundary of Khasra No.1090.

It is case of the petitioner(s) that aforesaid Jagjiwan Ram was ordered to be evicted by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kumarsain, after completing proceedings initiated against him under Section 163 of the H.P. L.R. Act. The said ejectment order was affirmed by the Revenue Courts, i.e. Collector, Sub-Division and Financial Commissioner (Appeals) H.P. and, thereafter, Jagjiwan Ram had filed CWP No.2915 of 2017 against ejectment warrant dated 24.07.2017 and notice dated 26.09.2017 with alternative prayer, seeking direction to the State to consider his case in view of Policy/Notification dated 19.04.2017 to all him to retain 5 bighas of encroached land, as his case was squarely falling within the ambit of aforesaid Policy issued by the State Government.

It is further case of the petitioner(s) that proceedings against large number of persons were initiated by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Kumarsain on the basis of complaints of Jagjiwan Ram and these complaints were sent by A.C. 1st Grade to D.F.O. Kotgarh vide letter dated 24.03.2022 (Annexure P-2) for initiating ejectment proceedings against them, but D.F.O. Kotgarh, had returned the case of the petitioner(s) to A.C. 1st Grade, Kumarsain, vide letter dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure P-3) with remarks that encroachment land was unprotected forest and it was not a forest land and, therefore, he was not competent to initiate proceedings against the petitioner(s) and resultantly, proceeedings under Section 163 of H.P. L.R. Act were initiated by A.C. 1st Grade, against the petitioner(s), and thus, it is claimed that land alleged to be encroached by the petitioner(s) is not a forest land.

It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner(s) that A.C. 1st Grade did not give opportunity to the petitioner(s) to defend their case which was necessary to be given in view of the reply filed by the petitioner(s), but contents of reply were ignored and eviction order was passed arbitrarily and the Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority have not applied their judicial mind and wrongly affirmed the order passed by A.C. 1st Grade.

In the reply filed before A.C. 1st Grade, stand taken by the petitioner(s) was that they have not encroached any Government land in any manner and reports submitted by the Revenue Field Agency was not based on true and actual position on the spot, but report was submitted just to harass the petitioner(s) by misusing due process of law whereas petitioner(s) never encroached disputed land as alleged.

Contrary to aforesaid stand, admitting encroachment, it was also asserted in the reply that as the High Court had passed order that no eviction could be taken against any person, who had encroached the Government land and did not have more than 10 bighas land including his/her own land, proceedings against petitioner(s) were liable to be dropped.

Further plea of the petitioner(s) is that Jagjiwan had filed a complaint in retaliation, whereas, land in reference was never demarcated on the spot in presence of petitioner(s) and demarcation, if any, was done in absence of the petitioner(s) which cannot be used against them.

Plea of the petitioner(s) that land in reference is not a forest land, but is a Government land, makes no difference as A.C. 1st Grade is competent to initiate proceedings for eviction of encroachment of Government land including forest land. Therefore, it does not affect passing of eviction order in jany manner, against the encroachment with respect to land in reference irrespective of the fact that land is forest or non forest land.

Since beginning petitioner(s) are blowing cold and hot in the same breath. On one side they are claiming that they have not encroached any land, on the other hand, they are claiming their right to retain up to 10 bighas of land including the land owned by them and up to 5 bighas land encroached by them.

In reply filed to the petition(s), orders of eviction passed against the petitioner(s) have been justified by assigning reasons thereto and elaborating the facts with submissions that land comprised in Khasra No.1090 is a land owned by the Government of H.P., possession whereof has been recorded in the name of “Kabza Svayam Tabe Hakook Bartandaaran Mutabik Naksha Bartan” and, therefore, it has been submitted that the land is of the nature of Charagah Darakhtan whereupon all Bartandaaran have rights and no exclusive right can be permitted in favour of anybody including the petitioner(s) by permitting retention of 5 bighas or 10 bighas or any portion of the said land.

In rejoinder to the reply, it has been reiterated that predecessor(s) of the petitioner(s) were in possession of the land in reference from generations, and land comprised in Khasra Nos.1020 and 1090 is Government land, therefore, only A.C. 1st Grade was competent to demarcate the same. Lastly, claim for allowing to retain encroached land to the extent of 5 bighas has been asserted by referring judgment dated 30.05.2018 passed in CWP No.2915 of 2017, titled as Jagjiwan Ram vs. State of H.P., whereby Jagjiwan Ram was allowed to retain 5 bighas of encroached land. It has been submitted that land encroached by Jagjiwan Ram is adjacent to the piece of land encroached by the petitioner(s) and, therefore, it has been submitted that equal treatment must be given to all and once Jagjiwan Ram, who is complainant in present case(s), himself has been allowed to retain 5 bighas of encroached land, petitioner(s) are also entitled to retain encroached land up to 5 bighas of land, whereas, land in reference wherefrom petitioner(s) were ordered to be evicted, is less than 5 bighas.

It has been further canvassed on behalf of the petitioner(s) that once Government has notified its intention by issuing Draft Policy in the year 2017, providing provisions for retaining up to 5 bighas of encroached land, petitioner(s), like Jagjiwan Ram, are entitled for same protection. Copy of order dated 30.05.2018 passed in CWP No.2915 of 2017 has been placed on record alongwith rejoinder is Annexure P-8.

Petitioner(s) have also filed supplementary affidavit in support of their claim of their entitlement to retain up to 5 bighas of encroached land by referring judgment dated 30.05.2018 passed in CWP No.2915 of 2017 with further submissions that as per Misal Haqiyat settlement and entries reflected in Jamabandi 2018-19, owner of the encroached land is Government of H.P., but in the column of cultivation the possession is of Bartandaaran. Therefore, it has been stated that rights of land holders of Village Sarahan qua encroached land as mentioned in Jamabandi cannot be denied to the land holders and they cannot be deprived of the rights as reflected in the Misal Haqiyat because encroached land is not a forest land and land holders of Village Sarahan have right to use this land as per entries of revenue record and it has been claimed that petitioner(s) are also entitled to similar relief as has been given to Jagjiwan Ram and they are entitled for permission to retain encroached land which is less than 5 bighas.

In response to the supplementary affidavit, affidavit of Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, dated 02.06.2025 has been filed, wherein it has been reiterated that Khasra No.1090 is owned by the Government of H.P., and entry in the revenue record reflecting possession is “Kabja Sawyam Tabe Haquq Bartandaaran” with classification of land as “Charagah Darakhtan” indicates that the said land is meant for common use of all right holders (Bartandaaran) of the Village, but not for individual or exclusive possession of anyone.

With respect to judgment dated 30.05.2018 passed in CWP No.2915 of 2017, it has been clarified in affidavit of Deputy Commissioner that from the nature of order passed in the said writ petition, it is clear that the said order cannot be construed as conferring an absolute or unconditional right to retain encroached Government land. Further that exclusive possession and conversion of land in reference into private orchard [(such as apple plantations by the petitioner(s)], violates rights of other Bartandaaran and alters the nature of land use contrary to the purpose mentioned in the revenue records and Misal Haqiyat. Further that both grazing and other community uses by Village landholders are permissible, converting such land into exclusive private use by planting orchards is impermissible, as the Misal Haqiyat and other revenue entries do not confer right to privatize or encroach upon the land meant for collective use especially which is in ownership of the State of H.P.

Lastly, it has been stated in the affidavit of Deputy Commissioner that relief granted to Jagjiwan Ram was conditional and subject to outcome of the connected cases such as CWP No.1093 of 2016. Further that this High Court vide judgment dated 08.01.2025 passed in CWPIL Nos.17 of 2014 and 9 of 2015 has directed the Authorities especially Revenue, Forest and National Highway Authorities to ensure that no encroachment remains on Government land.

From the record, it is apparent that though numerous grounds have been taken for assailing eviction orders passed by A.C. 1st Grade and order passed by Collector, Sub-Division and Financial Commissioner, H.P., affirming such eviction orders, but main and only ground espoused during hearing of present petition(s), as is also evident from the tone and tenor and contents of rejoinder as well as supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner(s) that petitioners are claiming their right on the basis of Draft Policy notified by the State on 19.04.2017 with proposal to formulate a regularization Policy to allow the encroachers to retain up to 5 bighas of encroached land as well as on the judgment dated 30.05.2018 passed in CWP No.2915 of 2017 in Jagjiwan Ram’s case whereby Jagjiwan Ram has been allowed to retain the land up to 5 bighas of encroached land after surrendering the land encroached by him in excess of 5 bighas.

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) to substantiate claim to retain encroached land up to 5 bighas has also referred paragraphs 5, 6, 8 and 10 of order dated 06.12.2017 passed in CWPIL No.9 of 2015 which read as under:-

Detailed directions thereafter came to be passed vide order dated 18.10.2016, which reads thus:-

“We direct the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, (HoFF), Himachal Pradesh to personally monitor and ensure that all cases of at least Districts Shimla and Kullu be firmly dealt with and encroachments over government/forest land removed within the period so undertaken by him. We clarify that failure to implement the orders of this Court and abide by the undertaking furnished to this Court shall tantamount to aggravation of contempt, consequences whereof already stand explained to him. We are further informed that with respect to all 1481 cases pertaining to encroachments (less than 10 Bighas) in Rohru Forest Division, the concerned District Forest Officer has passed necessary orders. Also out of 418 cases of encroachment pertaining to more than 10 Bighas, 399 cases already stand decided.

As such, we direct the District Forest Officer, Rohru to decide the remaining cases, positively within a period of four weeks from today.

Further, where orders of eviction already stand passed by the District Forest Officer, Rohru, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, (HoFF), Himachal Pradesh undertakes to ensure eviction of all encroachers, within four weeks.

We are further informed that in all 12 revenue districts of the State of Himachal Pradesh, total number of 4299 cases of revenue challan were filed before various revenue authorities, out of which 1277 cases stand decided and remaining 3022 cases are pending before various revenue authorities. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Additional Advocate General, under instructions, assures the Court that under all circumstances, all these cases would positively be decided within a period of eight weeks from today. We direct it to be so. Also, an affidavit indicating status of all these cases be filed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue within a period of two weeks from today.

We are further informed that out of 1277 such cases, encroachments in respect of 908 cases stand removed and process for eviction with respect to remaining 369 cases is in progress. With respect to the same, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Additional Advocate General, under instructions, undertakes to ensure removal of all encroachments within a period of four weeks.”

It was after passing of the aforesaid directions that the State itself in exercise of the powers conferred by section 163-A read with Section 169 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953, proposed to make draft rules by repealing the Himachal Pradesh Regularization of Encroachments (in Certain Cases) on Government Land and Disposal of Government Land Rules, 2002, for carrying out the purpose of the Act, whereby amongst other it virtually sought to regularize the encroachment to the maximum limit of five (5) bighas of land in such a manner that own land of the possessor and the land conferred under these rules does not exceed 10 bighas and remaining land, if any, in possession shall stand vacated by such possessor.

… … …

This application came up for consideration on 11.04.2017 and was disposed of by observing that the State could proceed with the policy but that would not be construed to mean that this Court had upheld the legality and validity of the proposed policy and if the policy is eventually made, then its validity and legality could be tested at any time, if so questioned.

… ……

As regards the encroachment of less than five (5) bighas of land, the orders of eviction in these cases have been temporarily stayed. However, as regards the encroachments made over more than five (5) bighas of land, majority of the encroachers out of their free will and volition undertook to remove/vacate the same and statements to this effect were made in the open Court and have been duly recorded.””

As also rightly pointed out in the affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, the writ petition CWP No.2915 of 2017 of Jagjiwan Ram was disposed of in following terms:-

“5. In view of the aforesaid facts, we deem it proper to dispose of the present petition at this stage with the clarification that the retention of 5 bighas of encroached land shall, however, be subject to the further directions that may be passed by this Court in CWP No.1093 of 2016 and other connected matters which are already sub-judice before this Court and shall further be subject to any other and further directions that may be passed by this Court in any other petition. The protection permitting the retention of encroached land of a maximum limit of 5 bighas shall not in any manner be construed as upholding the legality and validity of the proposed policy as framed by the State Government and shall be subject to the orders that may eventually be passed by this Court from time to time qua retention to the extent of 5 bighas of encroached land.”

It is apt to record that on behalf of the State, it has been specifically and categorically informed that State, at present, does not intend to frame any regularization Policy including the Policy on the basis of Draft Scheme notified in the year 2017 and, thus, there is no proposal pending for formulating any Policy for regularization of the encroached Government land up to 5 bighas. Therefore, claim of the petitioner(s) to retain 5 bighas of encroached land on the basis of non existent Scheme is not sustainable being misconceived, illegal and devoid of any enforcible right.

At this stage, keeping in view nature of the claim of the petitioner(s), based on judgment dated 30.05.2018 passed in CWP No.2915 of 2017, it is necessary to clarify, as is also evident from the operative portion of the judgment passed in CWP No.2915 of 2017 (Paragraph-5) quoted supra, the protection or permission granted to Jagjiwan Ram for continuing and retaining encroachment upon the Government land up to 5 bighas was subject to further direction that may be passed by this High Court in ‘CWP No.1093 of 2016 and other connected matters’ which were already sub-judice before this Court and also subject to ‘any other and further directions that may be passed by this Court in any other petition’.

It was further clarified that, as also recorded in the aforesaid judgment dated 30.05.2018, permission to retain encroached land of a maximum limit of 5 bighas shall not in any manner be construed as upholding legality and validity of the proposed Policy proposed to be framed by the State Government and shall be subject to the orders that may, eventually be passed by this Court from time to time qua retention to the extent of 5 bighas of encroached land.

It has already been clarified by the State that there is no proposal pending for framing such Policy, rather it has been communicated that Government is not going to frame any such Policy.

It is also relevant to record here that vide judgment dated 08.01.2025 passed in CWPIL Nos.17 of 2014 and 9 of 2015, this Court has already directed to remove all encroachments from the Government land, including the forest land and public roads. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as under:-

“35. In aforesaid backdrop, these petitions are disposed of with following directions:-

(i) The concerned Officers and Officials of all Departments/ Authorities, especially of the Revenue, Forest Department as well as National Highway Authority of India, shall ensure that there is no fresh encroachment on the Government/Forest land/Public Roads/Public Paths in future by any other person including ex-encroachers.

(ii) Forest Guard(s), Patwari(s) and Work Inspectors shall report all existing and/or any fresh encroachment upon Government/Forest land/Public Road/Public Path in their respective beat/area/ jurisdiction to the respective Deputy Ranger/Kanungo/Junior Engineer with endorsement of copy of such information to Divisional Forest Officer(s)/Tehsildar(s)/Naib Tehsildar(s)/Assistant Engineer concerned immediately on receiving information or on detection of such encroachment without any delay and concerned Officer shall ensure immediate action thereon in accordance with law to remove encroachment, to protect the Government/ Forest land/Public Road from encroachment by taking preventive measures.

(iii) The Forest Guards, throughout the State, during first week of each month, shall furnish in writing the report through Deputy Rangers, to concerned Divisional Forest Officers, submitting the details of encroachment on the Government/ Forest land in his beat(s) with known probable date of such encroachment or a written certificate declaring that there is no unreported encroachment in his area.

(iv) Every Patwari posted in the field, during first week of each month, shall furnish in writing the report through Field Kanungo, to concerned Tehsildar(s)/Naib Tehsildar(s), submitting the details of encroachment on the Government/ Forest land in his Patwar Circle(s) with known probable date of such encroachment or a written certificate declaring that there is no unreported encroachment in his area.

(v) Every Work Inspector posted in the field, during first week of each month, shall furnish in writing the report through Junior Engineer, to concerned Assistant Engineer, submitting the details of encroachment on the Public Roads/Public Path with known probable date of such encroachment or a written certificate declaring that there is no unreported encroachment in his area.

(vi) Deputy Ranger/Kanoongo/Assistant Engineer on receiving information from Forest Guard/ Patwari, or otherwise, shall immediately report the same to the concerned DFO/Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar/Assistant Engineer and also take any possible action on their part necessary in the given facts and circumstances to prevent/remove the encroachments upon Government/Forest Land/Public Roads.

(vii) On receiving information regarding encroachment, if any, on Government/Forest land, concerned Divisional Forest Officer or Assistant Collector 1st Grade/Assistant Collector 2nd Grade/Assistant Engineer, as the case may be, shall ensure prompt action and initiation of proceedings for removal/eviction of such encroachment immediately but not later than one month of receipt of such information.

(viii) Divisional Forest Officer/Assistant Collector 1st Grade/Assistant Collector 2nd Grade/Assistant Engineer shall submit his half yearly report to his next superior Officer with respect to number of detected fresh cases of encroachment, action taken thereon, previous pending cases with status thereof during last three working days of month of June and December of every year.

(ix) It shall be personal responsibility of Office bearers of the Panchayat including Secretary(ies) to report of cases of encroachment within their jurisdiction, in writing to the concerned Divisional Forest Officer/Assistant Collector 1st Grad/Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, as the case may be, with endorsement of copy of such information to concerned Deputy Commissioner(s).

(x) The respondent/State is also directed to make suitable changes in law by amending relevant Act/Rules appropriately to assign such duty upon office bearer of Panchayat including the Secretary as well consequences of violation of such duty.

(xi) The Deputy Commissioner shall monitor the action taken on the information of encroachment submitted by the Forest Guard/Patwari/officer bearer of the Panchayat/Work Inspectors by calling periodical quarterly reports during first week of January, April, July and October of every year related to previous quarters.

(xii) The H.P. State Electricity Board and Jal Shakti Vibhag shall ensure that no electricity and/or water connection is provided to illegal structure raised over Government land irrespective of nature of structure i.e. permanent, temporary or simple tin structure. In case electricity and water connections have been provided to such illegal structures, the Board and Department shall initiate appropriate action for disconnecting such connections by giving one month’s notice to the encroachers by ensuring disconnection of such connection within one month after expiry of one month’s notice.

(xiii) The concerned Department including the Revenue, Forest and Public Works Departments shall initiate recovery proceedings for undue profit earned by encroachers by not only cutting down the trees but also utilizing the land by sowing crops and raising orchards. This exercise shall be undertaken in all cases of encroachment where encroachments have already been removed or are being removed or will be removed in future.

(a) To assess the amount to be recovered in lieu of forest trees illicitly felled or removed from the land shall be computed/worked out on the basis of 5 years average yield/market value of such trees.

(b)The benefit earned by utilizing the land shall also be calculated on the basis of period of encroachment/ possession claimed by encroachers or ex-encroacher;

(c) Where no such period is claimed by encroacher, the period for calculating the recovery of amount shall be decided by determining the age of fruit growing trees standing on the encroached land or estimated age of construction raised upon the encroached land or any other relevant evidence available to determining the period of encroachment upon the Government land as the case may be.

(d) In cases where period of encroachment is not possible to be calculated on the basis of aforesaid factors, the amount to be recovered may be calculated by determining the period of encroachment from the date of detection thereof but with reasons for not calculating the amount on basis of aforesaid paras (a), (b) and (c).

(xiv) In all aforesaid cases where amount is recoverable from encroachers or ex-encroachers and demand shall be raised by concerned Department/Authority within two months from today if not already raised and in case such amount is not paid within reasonable period, to be determined on the basis of quantum of amount to be recovered, but not more than 6 months from the date of demand, the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954. Demand in pending cases may be raised within two months after finalization of proceedings.

(xv) The amount so recovered/collected from the encroachers shall be utilized for afforestation in the land evicted by encroacher or any ancillary purpose as may be deemed fit and proper by the Department with expressed permission of the concerned Deputy Commissioner.

(xvi) Cost of removal or eviction shall be recovered from encroachers. Where encroachers did not remove the illegal structure raised on encroached land, the same shall be removed, if not required by concerned Department for any beneficial use in the larger interest of public, the same shall be removed by the Department and cost thereof shall also be recoverable from encroachers.

(xvii) In all cases where encroachment has been removed or is to be removed, the evicted land shall be fenced with barbed wire at the cost of encroacher by fixing permanent boundary marks with angle arms using the concrete.

(xviii) Where fruit growing trees are there on evicted Government land, the concerned Department including he Revenue and Forest Departments shall sale out the proceeds of fruits by way of auction if practically viable to do so, otherwise the fruits of such orchards may be left for consumption of wild animals.

(xix) In case of sale of fruits, the amount shall be utilized for afforestation or any other ancillary purpose. Such action shall be conducted under the supervision of concerned Deputy Commissioner who shall be responsible to monitor the entire exercise in just and lawful manner.

(xx) Videography of all proceedings or demarcation, identification of Government land, eviction of encroachers therefrom and auction of fruit’’s sale, if any, shall be preserved in the offices of concerned Divisional Forest Officer(s) and Deputy Commissioner(s).

(xxi) No encroacher after finalization of eviction proceedings shall be allowed to enter in the encroached land save and except permitted by the competent Court of law.

(xxii) In addition to the proceedings for removal of encroachment as already observed in various directions passed by the Court in numerous cases including the present petitions, the criminal cases/ FIR shall also be lodged for trespass and other offences pending under the applicable panle of laws. However, it is made clear that lodging of FIR shall not amount of dispensing the authorities from initiating the separate process for removal of encroachment.

(xxiii) In future, the Government shall also ensure imparting training to all concerned Officers before the appointment to the post assigned with duty to perform the function of Collector under H.P. Public Premises Act and under Section 163 of H.P. Land Revenue Act. The training to the concerned Officers likely to be promoted/appointed to the post assigned with duty of Collector/Assistant Collector under PP Act and Section 163 of H.P. Land Revenue Act shall be ensured in advance before their such promotion/appointment. In case of appointment by way of direct recruitment to such post, before the posting, the aforesaid training to such officer shall be made compulsory/mandatory.

(xxiv) The respondents and all concerned Officers/authorities are also directed to ensure removal of all encroachments from the Government land as expeditiously as possible by concluding the proceedings in a time bound manner keeping in view the timeline notified by ACS (Revenue) vide communication/ instructions dated 6th January, 2025 referred in para 24. It shall be personal responsibility of all concerned Divisional Forest Officer(s)/Tehsildar(s) and Appellate and Revisional Authorities to ensure compliance of aforesaid directions.

(xxv) It shall be the responsibility of the concerned Superintendent of Police to ensure safety and security of the Officers/staff engaged for detecting/ removing encroachments in/from Government/Forest Land, and also to render adequate necessary prompt assistance to them in performing their job. Failing in compliance, the concerned Officer/official of the Police shall also be liable for Departmental Proceedings, in addition to other proceedings/consequences.

(xxvi) In absence of plausible explanation for any delay in reporting and/or taking action shall invite civil, criminal and departmental action as required in given facts and circumstances.

(xxvii) Concerned Competent Authority, for giving effect to the aforesaid directions by incorporating the same in duty and also to provide action/ consequences of dereliction of such duty, including civil/criminal/ Departmental Proceedings, shall amend the relevant law including Acts/Rules/Service Rules suitably. Till such amendments, directions passed in this regard in these petitions, shall hold the field as law for implementing the directions and also for consequences on dereliction of duty for not complying/adhering to the directions.

Aforesaid directions are in supersession of earlier directions.

… … …

Concerned officials/officers in performing their duty, shall ensure steps to protect the Government/Forest land from any type of encroachment. On detecting encroachment on Government land, they (field staff) shall report the same to the next Higher Authority/Officer, who, in turn, shall ensure taking of immediate action for removal of such encroachment. Encroachers shall not be allowed to regain their

unauthorized occupation/possession on any portion of Government/Forest land. In case of dereliction of duty, Field Staff/concerned Higher Authority, as the case may be, shall be liable to face, apart from contempt proceedings, the criminal as well as departmental proceedings after immediate suspension on finding unreported/overlooked encroachment/re-encroachment on the Government/Forest land. Departmental proceedings, in such a case, shall be initiated for removal/dismissal from service.”

In view of categorical statement made on behalf of the State that no Policy is in existence or is proposed to be framed for allowing retention of any encroached land up to 5 bighas or 10 bighas and also for the judgment dated 08.01.2025 passed in CWPIL No.9 of 2015 subsequent to judgment dated 30.05.2018 passed in CWP No.2915 of 2017 neither Jagjiwan Ram is entitled for continuation of any protection to retain 5 bighas of encroached land nor anybody else including petitioner(s) is entitled for the same.

Jagjiwan Ram’s order was conditional or it was subject to further order passed by this High Court in any other petition with regard to encroachment of the land including encroachment Policy, if any, in existence. At present, there is no Policy in existence and mandate of the judgment dated 08.01.2025 is to remove all encroachments from the Government land in a time bound manner and the Government of H.P. through Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue) as well as Forest Department have also issued Circular for adhering to and complying with direction issued by this Court in CWPIL Nos.17 of 2014 and 9 of 2015. Therefore, protection granted to Jagjiwan Ram in the judgment dated 30.05.2018 passed in CWP No.2915 of 2017 stands automatically vacated especially for the nature of the order providing conditional protection to Jagjiwan Ram. Thus, neither Jagjiwan Ram nor petitioner(s) or anybody else are entitled for retaining even an inch of encroached land much less up to 5 bighas of land.

Accordingly, order dated 30.05.2018 is to be read with judgment dated 08.01.2025 and resultantly protection granted vide order dated 30.05.2018 has lost its efficacy and force and thus, Jagjiwan Ram is not entitled for continuing any protection in terms of the judgment dated 30.05.2018, rather same stands modified making him liable to vacate/surrender the encroached land immediately and/or to face the consequences.

In Jagjiwan Ram’s case also, like present cases, clear order was passed against him by A.C. 1st Grade, affirmed and upheld uptill the highest Revenue Court and in the writ petition, assailing the said eviction order, limited conditional protection was granted to Jagjiwan Ram, which has become redundant, rather stands vacated in view of judgment dated 08.01.2025 passed in CWPIL Nos.17 of 2014 and 9 of 2015.

In view of above discussion, concerned Authorities are directed to ensure eviction of the petitioner(s) including Jagjiwan Ram as well as any other person claiming any right on the basis of similar judgment or order granting temporary protection passed in any other writ petition.

It is made clear that for taking action against all similarly situated persons for evicting them from the Government land, there is no need to the respondents-State to approach this Court for obtaining fresh order of eviction or vacation of interim protection granted to such persons as the conditional protection so granted stands vacated automatically for statement by learned Advocate General on behalf of Government and also for passing of judgments in similar matter and judgment dated 08.01.2025 in CWPIL Nos.17 of 2014 and 9 of 2015, subsequent to judgment dated 30.05.2018 in CWP No.2915 of 2017.

Concerned officers are directed to initiate/revive eviction proceedings or Execution Petition, as the case may be, and ensure eviction in such cases as well as other persons in terms of order dated 08.01.2025 on or before 15.07.2025. Respondents are directed to submit status report on or before 21.07.2025.

Chief Secretary is directed to issue necessary instructions to all concerned Departments including Revenue and Forest to revive, restart eviction proceedings/execution proceedings against all such persons who are enjoying similar protection like Jagjiwan Ram and to ensure eviction of such encroachers on or before 15.07.2025 as in view of subsequent order passed in other similar matters, such protection has lost its efficacy and enforcibility.

Petition(s) are dismissed and disposed of in aforesaid terms along with pending application(s), if any.