ORDER 1. This revision petition under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act has been preferred by Shri Bansi Lal s/o Shri Surju r/o Karara, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, against the order dated 20.9.1994 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, Shimla in Revenue Appeal No. 146/94 where by the appeal of the petitioner/appellant was rejected. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the report of Patwari Halqua dated 2.1.1973, the Assistant Collector II Grade, Arki initiated proceedings under Section 163 H.P. Land Revenue Act against the petitioner and finally vide his orders dated 27.3.1973, he passed ejectment orders against the encroacher (present petitioner) for encroaching the Government land comprised in Khasra No. 307/241/1 measuring 0-1 Biswa situated in mauza Karara, Tehsil Arki. The petitioner further filed revision petition before the Financial Commissioner who set aside the order of Assistant Collector II Grade dated 27.3.1973 vide his orders dated 31.1.1975 and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector for decision afresh according to law. 3. The Assistant Collector again heard the parties and confirmed the earlier ejectment orders against the petitioner. Against the order dated 25.10.1975 of the Assistant Collector Arki, the petitioner again filed an appeal before the Collector, Arki which was dismissed vide orders dated 1.12.1975 by the Collector, Arki. Subsequent thereto the matter remained in litigation at different forums at the instance of the petitioner including before my learned predecessor, but the net impact of these proceedings was that, that the petitioners status on the land continued to be held as that of an encroacher and no reprieve whatsoever came to him from any Court. Latest order in this regard has been passed by the Commissioner Shimla Division on 20.9.1994 by which he has again reiterated that the land under encroachment of the petitioner is encroachment simpliciter and there is no Government policy or rule under which the encroachment could be regularised. The Commissioner accordingly held the ejectment valid. 4. The petitioner in the petition has also made a mercy plea by submitting that since there is a temple on the land in question being a public utility be regularised in favour of the petitioner in view of the longstanding possession and litigation. 5. The Commissioner accordingly held the ejectment valid. 4. The petitioner in the petition has also made a mercy plea by submitting that since there is a temple on the land in question being a public utility be regularised in favour of the petitioner in view of the longstanding possession and litigation. 5. After hearing the petitioner and going through the record of the case, I have not been able to pursuade myself to agree to the plea of the petitioner, primarily for the reason that the petitioner himself regards his possession as encroachment simpliciter on the Government land. Though it would be very harsh at this stage to ask the petitioner to vacate the encroachment however minor, existing in the form of a small temple built over about one Biswa of land, where probably other visitors and devotees might be thronging for worship and prayers etc., but the fact remains that the temple has been built on the Government land and such possession has to be dealt with in accordance with law contained in Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act whereunder the only course provided for, is to effect ejectment from the Government lands. There is no saving whatsoever provided in the law except the eviction of unauthorised occupation from the public premises. Therefore we have no alternative but to order ejectment of the petitioner from this piece of Government land. But before parting with the case, it be placed on record that the purported encroachment being in the form of a temple, a public utility place, management thereof can be take over by the District Collector or by the Sub-Divisional Collector, instead of actually demolishing the temple on the spot. The petitioner is also at liberty to make his plea to the State Government with regard to the allotment of the land in his favour; as such a plea is not maintainable before this Court. 6. In view of the discussion we have no alternative but to dismiss the revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. 7. Orders be communicated to the parties and the file of this Court be consigned to Record Room after due completion. Revision dismissed.