The court upheld the authority's decision that the petitioner was an encroacher on Government land, emphasizing that assurances from the Gram Panchayat did not confer legal rights to occupy the land.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-

“That the impugned order dated 11.12.2023 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the ejectment order dated 28.04.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Collector Pooh, may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 11.12.2023, Annexure P-5 passed in Revision Petition No.50 of 2022, in terms whereof, the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner against the earlier orders passed by the Authorities in terms whereof, the petitioner is held to be an encroacher upon the Government land and ordered to be evicted there from, has been up held by the learned Revisional Authority.

3. The case of the petitioner is that in lieu of land donated by him for the purpose of the construction of a primary health centre, Gram Panchayat assured him that he shall be granted alternative land. The petitioner was also assured that he could take possession of Government land and thereafter, formalities shall be undergone and Deputy Commissioner/Collector of the District shall be requested to make necessary incorporation in the revenue record reflecting the land to be in the name of the petitioner as its owner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was on the assurance of the Gram Panchayat that the petitioner occupied the land in question and, therefore, he cannot be termed to be an encroacher. Learned counsel drew attention of the Court to the documents appended with the petition, i.e. two resolutions passed by Gram Panchayat Giaboung dated 02.10.2018 and 25.11.2017 and submitted that it is apparent and evident from said resolutions of the Gram Panchayat that it resolved and recommended that Nautor be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, learned counsel argued that as the act of the petitioner of occupying the Government land was a bona fide act and as this extremely important aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the Authorities, the petition be allowed and the impugned order(s) be set aside.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner has been held to be a rank encroacher by all the authorities, in the proceedings which were initiated against him under the H.P. Land Revenue Act. He submitted that no assurance was ever given to the petitioner by any of the Government Authorities as alleged by the petitioner and the act of the petitioner of encroaching upon the Government land cannot be condoned simply because he might have donated some land for the construction of a primary health centre. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that even otherwise in the exercise of its power of judicial review, all that this Court can go into is the legality of the order impugned from the procedural perspective and it is not as if, this Court will act as an Appellate Authority so as to re- appreciate the evidence. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that in the course of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out that the orders passed by the Authorities were perverse being contrary to the record and, therefore, as there is no merit in the petition, he urges that the same be dismissed.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that the land, which the petitioner now intends to forgo in favour of the Government in lieu of the encroached Government land, is not owned by him as the sole owner. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner has not only encroached upon the Government land, but has also constructed a building thereupon which stands rented out by him to various persons. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as respondent No.2 is a co-sharer of the land, which the petitioner intends to forgo in favour of the Government, which the petitioner cannot unilaterally do, therefore, as the petitioner otherwise has been found to be a rank encroacher upon th