The judgment established the limitations of the court's jurisdiction in interfering with orders passed by competent authorities under the H.P. Public Premises Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1971, and emphasized the principles of adverse possession and burden of proof.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The petitioner has been found to have encroached upon 45.70 square metres of land belonging to the respondents in the proceeding initiated against him under the H.P. Public Premises Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1971 (for short the “Act”) and has filed the instant petition for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

“A. That the impugned order dated 02.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla in Civil Misc. Appeal No.20-S/14 of 2015 titled as Satpal Nahar versus Union of India vide Annexure P/1 and the impugned decision dated 14.05.2015 passed by the learned Estate Officer vide Annexure P/2 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

B. That in alternatively the respondent may kindly be directed to allot a residential plot and financial assistance for house construction, or a ready-built house, with financial assistance in accordance with the provisions of “THE PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT AS MANUAL SCAVENGERS AND THEIR REHABILITAITON ACT, 2013.”

2. The petitioner was served with eviction notice under Section 4 of the Act for having illegally encroached upon the land of the respondents comprised in Khasra Nos.1258, 1259, 1260, 1261 and 1262, total measuring 45.70 square metres, situated at Silwan Hall, Longwood, Shimla.

3. These proceedings were contested by filing reply wherein it was averred that the respondents are not the owner of the land as the same belongs to the State Government and, therefore, it has no right to seek eviction. It was further averred that the petitioner had otherwise become owner by way of adverse possession and, therefore, could not be ordered to be ejected from the land in question. The Estate Officer ordered the eviction of the petitioner by coming to the conclusion that he was an encroacher by according the following reasons:-

“1. Perusal of copy of Jamabandi, Demarcation Report and Statement of witnesses and Exhibits shows that the land in dispute is owned and possessed by the Central Government while no convincing official documentary record showing possession of the premises by the respondent as legal and valid, could be produced.

2. The undersigned has been conferred with the powers of Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants Act, 1971) by the Central Government for the removal of encroachments on the Central Government land. Therefore, the undersigned is competent to try this case under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants Act, 1971).

3. That by perusing the Tatima, Jamabandi and Demarcation report, it has clearly been established and proved on record that the disputed land is owned and possessed by the Central Government which has also been affirmed by the State Government revenue authorities.

4. Though the respondent has filed reply to the notice but in support of his contention, the respondent failed to prove on record any valid documentary evidence before this court that the land in question belongs to him. The witnesses examined by him also failed to produce any valid document which shows that the land in question belongs to the respondent. So far as plea of respondent with regard to ownership by way of adverse possession is concerned, this is a case of unauthorized occupation and this authority has been conferred with the powers of Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants Act, 1971) by the Central Government for the removal of encroachments on the Central Government land. Therefore, the undersigned is competent to try this case under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants Act, 1971). Further, during the pendency of the case with a view for proper adjudication of the case and to confirm about land dispute and encroachment, this court had also ordered to demarcate the premises in question from the competent State Revenue agency. Through the Demarcation report by the revenue agency, it has been confirmed