The duty to discourage wrongdoers, the obligation to safeguard and compensate for environmental damage, and the need to neutralize unjust enrichment and undeserved gain made by litigants.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

Since common question of law and facts arise for consideration in these petitions, therefore, these petitions were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. Both the petitioners have been found to have encroached upon the Government land by both the authorities below while exercising power under the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (for short the ‘Act’) and have now by medium of this writ petition prayed for setting aside of the orders so passed.

3. The brief facts as are necessary for adjudication of these petitions are that the respondent No. 2 filed complaints against the petitioners under Section 4 (1) of the Act before the competent authority i.e. Collector-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Kullu on the allegation that the petitioner Gulab Dass had encroached upon the Government land measuring 1-56-90 hectares i.e. khasra Nos. 79/2/1 measuring 01-01-16 hectares and 79/2/2 measuring 0-55-74 hectares in Muhal Prini by planting apple trees. Whereas petitioner Budhi Singh had encroached upon the land measuring 1-05-07 hectares in the same Muhal comprising Khasra Nos. 203, 206, 207 and 992.

4. The main defence raised by the petitioners before the authorities below was that they had become owners by adverse possession. However, this plea was negated by both the authorities below compelling the petitioners to file the instant petitions.

5. The plea of adverse possession has been given up before this Court in these petitions and the petitioners have now assailed the orders passed by the authorities below mainly on the ground that these authorities have not taken into consideration the pleadings and have not properly appreciated the evidence led by the parties. They have also failed to take into consideration that FIR registered in the case had resulted in the acquittal of the petitioners and that there was a serious dispute with respect to the demarcation and identification of the property. It is further averred that the lands have vested upon the petitioners on the basis of ‘Khangi Taksim’ (family partition) on the basis of which they considered themselves to be owners in possession of the same.

6. The respondents had filed their reply wherein it is stated that both the authorities below have acted and decided these cases strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure. It is further averred that the petitioners were granted more than ample opportunities to prove their case which they failed to do and now that the petitioners are rank-encroachers and have no right or title over the lands encroached by them and therefore these writ petitions be dismissed.

7. It is also averred that the orders passed by the authorities below are in conformity and in compliance to the orders passed by this Court, from time to time, in CWPIL No. 17 of 2014 titled as Court on its own motion vs. State of H.P. whereby the respondents have been directed to remove all kinds of encroachments over the forest and other lands.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the material placed on record.

8. At the outset, we may observe that the main ground taken by the petitioners before the authorities below was with respect to adverse possession and none of the grounds as sought to be raised in these writ petitions, were taken before the authorities below save and except the ground that no demarcation had been effected on the spot in presence of the petitioners and the report and the site plan were wrong and contrary to the factual position on the spot.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that no demarcation was conducted in the presence of the petitioners and, therefore, no reliance could have been placed on this demarcation and the consequential report prepared on the basis of such demarcation. We are not at all impressed by this argument for the simple reason that in case the petitio