O R D E R

By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to quash and set aside the order dated 17.1.2022, passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, in case titled Sh. Prakash Chand vs. State of H.P., affirming the order dated 7.4.2016, passed by Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, Division Mandi, whereby, revision petition having been filed by petitioner herein laying therein challenge to order dated 10.8.2004, passed by Sub Divisional Collector, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur in case No. 96/2 of 2022, affirming the order dated 17.3.2002, passed by AC Ist Grade, Ghumarwin, came to be dismissed.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that AC Ist Grade, Ghumarwin initiated encroachment proceedings under Section 163 of H.P. Land Revenue Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’) against the petitioner for his having encroached upon Govt. land comprised in Khasra No. 122/108/2/1, measuring 0-01 bighas situate in Mauza Sumari, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P.

3. Since, the aforesaid authority found petitioner to have encroached upon the Govt. land vide order dated 17.07.2003, it ordered eviction of petitioner from the land in question. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred an appeal before Collector Sub Divisional Ghumarwain, who after having heard parties, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 10.08.2004. Petitioner agitated aforesaid order of Collector Sub Divisional, Ghumarwin, by way of Revision bearing No. 18/2005 in the court of learned Divisional Commissioner Mandi, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 7.4.2016. Finally, petitioner preferred revision petition under Section 17 of the Act, before Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 17.1.2022, affirming eviction orders passed by various revenue authorities.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this court finds that land in Khasra No. 122/108/2/1 area measuring 21-08 Bigha situte in Moauza Sumari, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur was recorded in the ownership of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Part of aforesaid land i.e. Khasra No. 122/108/2/1 measuring 0-02 Bigha was allotted jointly to the petitioner and his wife. However, subsequently, he was found to be in illegal possession of area measuring 0-01 Bigha over and above 0-02 Bigha, allotted in his favour. After having received reports of Patwari and Field Kanungo, petitioner was found to have encroached upon the government land, by construction, as such, proceedings under S.163 of the Act were initiated against the petitioner.

5. Precise grouse of the petitioner, as is highlighted in the instant petition and has been further canvassed by learned counsel representing the petitioner is that 02 Biswa of land was allotted to him as well as his wife in Khasra No 122/108/1 and he has constructed his house on this land.

6. Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate, submitted that revenue authorities with a view to ascertain factum with regard to encroachment, if any, on government land, ought to have ordered for demarcation, but since in the case at hand, prior to passing of eviction order, no demarcation was conducted, order of eviction passed by AC

1st Grade is not sustainable in the eye of law.

7. However, having carefully perused the record, we find no merit in the claim of the petitioner. Various authorities as prescribed under the Act had an occasion to deal with the matter and they all in unison on the basis of record have returned the finding that the petitioner has encroached upon the government land. Otherwise also, record clearly reveals that the factum of encroachment on government land was verified by the Patwari and Kanungo concerned. Needless to say, this court while exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot go into the disputed questions of facts, if any, rather