(2024:HHC:14814-DB )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 116 of 2017 Date of decision: 13.11.2024 Saran Dass …Petitioner.

Versus Divisional Commissioner and Anr. …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the Petitioner. Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)

Petitioner, in the present case, has assailed order dated

06.04.2016 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi, H.P. in case No.304/2013 titled as Saran Dass Vs. State of H.P. whereby his eviction from the forest land comprising in Khasra No.1755/1699/1, mesauring 0-01-12 Bighas (0.0064 ha.) situated in Muhal Chhanag, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. as directed vide order dated 14.06.2013 passed by Collector-cum-DFO, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Case No.2/2012-13 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Saran Dass has been affirmed.

2. In the present case, during measurement by the Patwari Halqua of Muhal Ropa Padhar, it was detected that petitioner had encroached upon Khasra No.1755/1699/1. During demarcation and spot verification it was confirmed that petitioner-Saran Dass had encroached upon the forest land measuring 0-01-12 Bighas and on the basis of that, Patwari Halqua had prepared tatima of the spot which was verified by the Kanungo Incharge. The case of encroachment was sent to Tehsildar Joginder Nagar for trial, and thereafter the case was sent to the Range Officer, Joginder Nagar who presented the challan before the Collector-cum-DFO, Joginder Nagar.

3. In proceedings under Himachal Pradesh Public Premises & Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery Act, 1971), notice was issued to the petitioner. In response thereto, petitioner filed the reply personally. State had produced evidence to prove the encroachment by the petitioner on the land in reference.

4. By referring notification dated 25.02.1952, it was concluded by the DFO/Collector that land, in reference was belonging to Forest Department and on culmination of proceedings eviction order was passed against the petitioner.

5. Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the eviction order was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner for finding no merit in the appeal. Hence present petition.

6. In reply, filed to the proceedings under the Public Premises & Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery Act, 1971), stand of the petitioner was that the land was sanctioned to him as a Nautor by the State Government of Himachal Pradesh and after getting the possession of the said land, he had constructed one room house over the portion of the suit land. Further that the land is situated adjacent to Joginder Nagar-Pathankot Road and all officials of Revenue/Forest and other Departments oftenly pass through the said road, but at no point of time he has been prevented from raising construction of the house, and, therefore, false complaint has been made that construction has been raised by him on the Government land.

7. It has also been contended that Forest Department was not in possession of the land, rather it was in possession of the residents of the Village Chhanag. It was also claimed by the petitioner that he was owner of the land adjacent to the Government/Forest land, but the demarcation was not conducted in accordance with law and thus the tatima prepared by the Revenue staff was not genuine and the construction has been raised by the residents as a bona-fide belief, and the State has no right to take advantage of the default at their own.

8. Respondent/Forest Department has also placed on reecord communication dated 24.10.2011 received by DFO from Tehsildar Joginder Nagar wherein it has been communicated by the Revenue Department that in the case of petitioner as well as in two other cases, there is encroachment upon the land belonging to the Forest, including t