IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.7745 of 2024 Date of Decision: 09.12.2024 _____________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Thakur ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State.

Mr. Praveen Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.7.

___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:

“A. That respondent department be directed to close L-14 Sidhpur which has been opened in an Forest area, i.e. Departmental Protected area Sidhpur under DFO Rampur (Forest Section Narkana) District Shimla in an illegal and unauthorized encroached Shed / Dhatra made over Forest land.

B. That officials of respondent Excise & Forest department who permitted opening of Excise Vend on Forest Land and concerned Forest Officials who despite information failed to take action against encroachment on Forest land be punished as per law.”

2. Private-respondent No.7-Mr. Vinod Sharma herein came to be allotted Retail Excise Vend L-14 for the year 2024-25 at village Kholighat, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, but subsequently afore liquor vend on the request made by private-respondent came to be shifted to place called Sidhpur.

3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that Department of Excise fully knowing that place where liquor vend, detailed hereinabove, is proposed to be shifted falls under demarcated protected forest, granted permission to shift vend from Kholighat to Sidhpur.

4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply. Reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1, 3, 5 and 6 clearly suggests that initially Retail Excise Vend L-14 was granted in favour of the respondent No.7 for location namely Kholighat, but subsequently on his request, afore liquor vend came to be shifted to place called Sidhpur. Reply filed on behalf of afore respondents is conspicuously silent about allegation levelled by petitioner that liquor vend shifted to place called Sidhpur is in the forest area. Reply filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 4 clearly reveals that as per demarcation report of Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Nankhari dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure R-III), 200 meter stretch of DPF Sidhpur/Sidhpura, whereupon the Retail Excise Vend is being run, is not present in any of the revenue records. Though, as per afore reply, it has been recommended in the report that area needs to be settled through the Settlement Department, but if reply is read in its entirety, it clearly reveals that there is no private land in Sidhpur and the area is a forest area.

5. Having taken note of construction made in the forest area by the person namely Thakur Dass, from whom private-respondent has taken accommodation on rent, Forest Department has already instituted case against Thakur Dass under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 and notice under Section 4 of afore Act already stands issued to aforesaid person by DFO-cum-Collector, Kotgarh (Annexure R-5). Reply filed by Excise Department clearly reveals that it had proceeded to accord permission to private-respondent No.7 to run liquor vend at place called Sidhpur on the basis of rent agreement produced by private- respondent No.7 with regard to his having entered into agreement inter se him and Thakur Dass, whereby afore Thakur Dass agreed to make available space at place called Sidhpur. Apart from above, Gram Panchayat of the area concerned a