The main legal point established is that adverse possession requires clear and continuous hostile possession, and inconsistent claims of ownership and adverse possession are not tenable.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The petitioner has been found to be an encroacher over government forest land by both the authorities below under the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (for short the ‘Act’) and has filed the instant writ petition for the following substantive reliefs:

“A. That the impugned order dated 17.11.2015 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division in Case No. 457/2012 vide Annexure P/1 and the impugned decision dated 24.06.2011 passed by the learned Collector-cum-DFO in case No. 96/2001-2 may kindly be quashed and set-aside.

B. That in alternatively the matter may kindly be remanded back to the learned Collector-cum-DFO to decide the matter afresh by answering all the objections/ contentions raised by the petitioner and his predecessor in interest with speaking order.”

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that based upon the demarcation conducted by the Settlement Patwari and Field Kanungo, a case of encroachment came to be filed against the petitioner for having encroached upon the forest land in Baragarh-III area measuring 00-06-00 hectares by fencing and planting fruit plants and also by constructing a wooden Khokha. These proceedings culminated in the order of eviction being passed against the petitioner.

3. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.6.2011 passed by the Collector-cum-DFO, Kullu, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, who too, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 17.11.2015.

4. This has led the petitioner to file the instant writ petition wherein it is contended that the reply filed by the petitioner to show cause notice has not been considered and the orders passed by both the authorities below are non-speaking orders bereft of any reasons and thus not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further contended that the Patwari was not competent to conduct the demarcation and the same otherwise had been conducted without associating the petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest. It is also contended that the Collector has not correctly decided the issue of adverse possession.

5. The respondents in their reply have categorically stated that the petitioner was well aware of the fact that he was in unauthorized occupation of the premises in dispute and, therefore, the eviction proceedings were rightly initiated against his father, who failed to substantiate his claim of adverse possession as there was no documentary proof on record to buttress such claim.

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

6. As regards, the first contention of the petitioner regarding the orders passed by the authorities below being non-speaking and devoid of any reasons, suffice it to say that the objection has been raised only for the sake of objection as evidently both the orders are not only speaking, but self contained orders spelling out clearly as to why the petitioner is to be evicted.

7. At this stage, we may notice that the order by the Collector-cum-DFO, Kullu has been passed after he formulated the points for determination, recorded the evidence of the parties and only thereafter by discussing the pleadings and scanning the evidence in detail, the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the land encroached by his father.

8. Similarly, the Divisional Commissioner while affirming the order of eviction has not simply dittoed the order passed by the Collector-cum-DFO, Kullu, but has given independent reasoning to uphold the order, to which no exception can be taken by the petitioner.

9. Insofar as the second contention regarding the demarcation having been conducted by a person not competent to do so, we really find no substance in this plea for the simple reason that this plea was though available to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner against whom the eviction proceedings had been initiated, yet he did not choose to question the competence of