IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12908 of 2024 Decided on: 9th March, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amit Dogra …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others f .....Respondents -----------------------------------------------o--------------------------------------

Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal and Mr. Harshit Sharma, Advocates.

For the CRespondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge The Assistant Collector Second Grade passed an order for ejectment of the petitioner under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act from the land in question. This order was affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Collector on 29.12.2022 as also by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 21.08.2024. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has instituted this writ petition.

Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

3. Following facts emerge from the record:-

3(i). Sh. Sohan Singh-father of the petitio.ner was recorded as owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra Nos.1278, 1411/1279 and 1412/ 1279, situated at Mohal Dasholi, Tehsil Chopal, oDistrict Shimla. Khasra No.1277 situated in same Mohal was classified as ‘Gair Mumkin Rasta Shahre Aam’ and recorded in the ownership of the State of Himuachal Pradesh in the jamabandi for the year 2007-08.

3(ii). Respondents issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act (in short ‘the Act’) on 10.02.2021, alleging that he had encroached over a portion of Khasra No.1277 denoted by Khasra No.1277/1, measuring 0-00-08 hectares (8 square meters).

HPetitioner filed reply to the notice on 30.04.2021, denying the allegations. He pleaded therein that the respondents had not carried out any demarcation of the land before preparing the encroachment report or issuing notice to him. Petitioner put forth his case that his father is owner of adjoining land; The boundary of the land owned by petitioner’s father and the disputed land is common and contiguous, therefore, identification of land through demarcation was mandatory.

3(iii). Assistant Collector Second Grade concluded that the petitioner had encroached over Khasra No..1277/1 to the extent of 0-00-08 hectares. The land was in the ownership of the State Government and cl assified as ‘Rasta Shahre Aam’. The Assistant Coollector Second Grade on 28.09.2021, ordered ejectment of the petitioner from the land in question.

3(iv). Petitioneur agitated the aforesaid order by filing an appeal under Section 14 of the Act before the Sub- Divisional Collector. Petitioner reiterated his stand that there was no cogent or convincing evidence on record of the case that he had encroached upon the government land in question. That his father was owner of adjoining land. Petitioner/his father had constructed house on their own Hland; There was no encroachment over the government land comprised in Khasra No.1277/1. That there was no obstruction to the common path over the aforesaid area used by the general public. Petitioner reiterated his objection that demarcation had not been conducted by the respondents before preparing the encroachment report. The Sub-Divisional Collector dismissed petitioner’s appeal on

29.12.2022, primarily for the reason that proceedings under Section 163 of the Act had been instituted against the petitioner after preparation of Missal Kabza Najayaz by the concerned Patwari Halqa, which was duly ve.rified by the concerned Kanungo. The Sub-Divisional Collector also observed that petitioner’s counsel had insisted about petitioner’s possession being openo, hostile and continuous over the land. This argument, a