An eviction order is unsustainable if it is non-speaking and relies on a previous order that was already set aside, especially when the underlying demarcation report contains factual discrepancies regarding land measurement.

Whether approved for reporting?, (Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes)

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Notice confined to respondents No.1 to 4, which is waived by Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General.

The interest of the petitioner is common to that of proforma respondents No. 5 to 17, who were petitioners along with present petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi in Appeal No. 240/2022 (old) 63/2025 (new). The interest of proforma respondents No. 5 to 17 being common with that of the petitioner, there is no necessity to issue notice of this petition to the aforesaid proforma respondents, more so, taking into consideration the nature

of the grievance raised by the petitioner, the impugned orders passed by the authorities, and the order being passed hereinafter, which is not against the interest of proforma respondents No. 5 to 17.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard at this stage.

2(i) Proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act were initiated and notice was issued to Sh. Bhag Chand S/o Shri Hukme Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and proforma respondents, for alleged encroachment by him over land comprised in Khasra No. 488 at Mohal Kotadhar, Sub Tehsil Aut, District Mandi. On the basis of the demarcation of the land conducted on 06.03.2012, the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Aut, District Mandi on 12.03.2012 passed an order for ejectment of the aforesaid Sh. Bhag Chand as an unauthorized occupant.

2(ii) Sh. Bhag Chand appealed against the order dated 12.03.2012 before the Collector Sub Division Sadar Mandi, District Mandi. The Sub Division Collector allowed the appeal preferred by Sh. Bhag Chand on 24.07.2013 inter alia holding that “there is difference of land measuring 15 Biswansis as stated in the demarcation report dated 06.03.2012 and as mentioned in the impugned order………….

In view of the foregoing discussion, I am led to believe that the impugned order is not as per law and is required to be set aside. The appeal is therefore allowed……….Assistant Collector 2nd Grade Aut is directed to decide the case afresh, strictly as per provisions contained in Section 163 of the Act and to afford opportunity of being heard to the appellant………..”

2(iii) It appears that, pursuant to an order passed by the National Green Tribunal in Sundar Singh vs. State of H.P. ,, (OA No. 13/2020 decided on 24.09.2020) the respondent–Forest Department initiated proceedings under the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 against Sh. Bhag Chand. An encroachment report was furnished on 01.02.2021. A show cause notice was accordingly issued to Sh. Bhag Chand on 18.03.2021 as to why eviction order be not passed against him. Sh. Bhag Chand furnished his response to the show cause notice on 19.07.2021. The parties led evidence in support of their respective stands. The Collector, Forest Division Mandi, on 17.08.2022, held Sh. Bhag Chand to be in unauthorized possession of the suit land and ordered his eviction. While passing this order, the Collector, Mandi Forest Division, observed that the eviction of Sh. Bhag Chand had already been ordered by the Assistant Collector Second Grade on 12.03.2012.

2(iv) The above order passed by the Collector, Mandi Forest Division, was assailed by the legal representatives of late Sh. Bhag Chand (the present petitioner and proforma respondents) before the Divisional Commissioner by filing an appeal under Section 9(2)(a) of the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act,