Eviction orders affecting individuals must comply with principles of natural justice, requiring clear reasoning and fair procedural adherence in administrative actions under eviction statutes.

ORDER

1. Permission to file special leave petition in SLP (c) Dy No. 47646/2024 is granted.

2. Delay in filing application(s) for setting aside abatement is condoned. Abatement is set aside. Application(s) for Substitution are allowed.

3. Leave granted.

4. Since issues of law and fact in this batch of appeals are identical, we propose to dispose of the same by this common judgment and order.

5. These appeals arise out of orders passed in eviction proceedings under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 [1971 Act]. All the appellants suffered findings that they were in unauthorized occupation of ‘forest land’. Eviction orders passed under Section 5 of the 1971 Act recording such findings together with appellate orders passed under section 9 thereof dismissing the appeals carried from such orders were the subject matter of challenge in separate writ petitions instituted before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla [High Court] at the instance of individuals who were declared unauthorized occupants of public land and facing imminent threat of eviction. By orders of varying dates, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions and made certain consequential directions. Orders of dismissal of the writ petitions are challenged in these civil appeals.

6. The civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 19946/2024 titled Babu Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh has been argued as the lead case by Mr. Neeraj Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant [Babu Ram] and Mr. Anup Kumar Rattan, learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh. We have heard them at some length.

7. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that all the orders of eviction were based on a purported demarcation report which, according to Babu Ram and the other appellants, was prepared without notice to them. Per contra, the stand of the respondent-State is that all the appellants were informed verbally of the proposed exercise to demarcate forest lands and that despite being aware, they did not participate in such exercise.

8. Be that as it may, once notice under section 4 of the 1971 Act was issued, Babu Ram responded thereto by raising a contention that he has not been in unauthorized occupation of any forest land. He also contended that he was in occupation of the subject land since long and that the land under his occupation being Government land, he is entitled to the protection of regularization in terms of the provisions contained in section 163A of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder.

9. The Collector-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Rampur Bushahr, Himachal Pradesh [Collector], upon consideration of the response of Babu Ram to the show cause notice, the evidence led by the parties and upon hearing them proceeded to pass an order dated 7th November, 2015. The concluding portion thereof recorded that for the “aforementioned reasons”, the Collector was of the opinion that Babu Ram was in unauthorized occupation of forest land and that he required to be evicted within thirty days from date of receipt of the order.

10. We have read the order dated 7th November, 2015 in between the lines to trace the reasons premised whereon Babu Ram was identified as an unauthorized occupant of forest land. The order, inter alia, records preparation of a challan put up by the Range Forest Officer, Nankhari before the Collector alleging that Babu Ram was in unauthorized occupation of forest land as the starting point based whereon notice under section 4 of the 1971 Ac