Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rakesh And Another vs State Of Hp And Others on 18 April, 2019
Bench: Surya Kant, Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 1984 of 2017.
.
Decided on: 18.04.2019
Rakesh and another .....Petitioners.
Versus
State of HP and others ......Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioners: Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Ajay Singh Kashyap, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with
Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Mr. Ashwani Sharma
and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional
Advocates General, for the respondentsState.
Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents
No. 6 to 10, 12 and 13.
Surya Kant, Chief Justice. (Oral)
The petitioners are residents of village SerWala, P.O. Kashlog Tehsil Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh and through the instant writ petition, they have sought the following reliefs:
"(a) To issue writ of certiorari or direction in the nature thereof or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the authorities to take appropriate proceedings against all encroachers for removal of encroachments from govt. land as described in superseding paras.::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 22:02:02 :::HCHP 2
(b) Direct the respondents to produce all the relevant record pertaining to the present case.
(c) Pass any writ, direction or order which this Hon'ble Court .
deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case so that the justice can be done to the petitioner."
2. The petitioners have impleaded private respondents No. 5 to 13 alleging, inter alia, that these respondents have encroached upon the Government land and regardless of eviction the removal of the encroachments.
r to orders passed or notices issued, no effective action is being taken for
3. The officials as well as private respondents have filed their respective replies. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have pointed out, inter alia, that appropriate action as per law has already been taken against the persons who have encroached upon the Government land as eviction proceedings have been initiated which are pending adjudication and some of them are at disposal stage. The reply/ affidavit further reveals that against some of the private respondents, warrants of ejectment have been issued which are pending execution. It is thus obvious that eviction orders have been passed against them.
4. So far as private respondents are concerned, they have candidly acknowledged the encroachment made on the Government land but their stand is that neither encroachments have hindered ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 22:02:02 :::HCHP 3 the construction of the public road nor they are liable to be evicted as there exists a Government Policy whereunder an encroachment .
over the Government land up to 5 bighas or less can be regularized.
It is also claimed that private respondents have constructed their houses or cattle sheds on the said land for the last over 2530 years.
5. The private respondents are said to have approached the State Government to regularize their possession subject to such terms and conditions as may be permissible.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that so long as in terms of a Statute or a Government Policy, the State Government does not legitimize the possession of the private respondents, they would be liable to be evicted from the Government land which has been admittedly, encroached upon.
Since the official respondents have come up with the stand that the eviction proceedings have been initiated and/or such eviction orders have been passed in some of the cases and execution proceedings are pending, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the official respondents that without prejudice to the decision which may be taken by the authorities concerned on the requests/applications/representations of the private respondents for regularization of their possession, let pending eviction or execution ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 22:02:02 :::HCHP 4 proceedings be taken to their logical conclusion within a period four months.
.
7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition stands disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.
(Surya Kant)
Chief Justice
April 18, 2019
r to (Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
(cm Thakur )
::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2019 22:02:02 :::HCHP