ORDER R. Bhattacharya.—This revision petition has come up for hearing on the recommendations made by the learned Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi vide his orders dated 4.6.1997 by which the learned Commissioner has recommended for setting aside the orders dated 31.8.1985 and 23.2.1987 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and order dated 28.5.1986 of the Sub-Divisional Collector, Sadar, Mandi. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the report of Patwari Halqua dated 24.2.1995, stating that the present petitioner Shri Neel Bahadur had encroached upon the Government land comprising in Khasra No. 1464/ 1, measuring 53 square metres by constructing a, House thereon. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sadar, Mandi initiated ejectment proceedings against the petitioner and finally vide his orders dated 31.8.1985, passed ejectment orders against the petitioner from the land in question and also imposed a fine of Rs. 20/-. Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Sadar, Mandi on the grounds that the present petitioner was landless person and no opportunity to plead his case was afforded to him by the Court below and further he was in adverse possession of the land in question for the last 15/16 years. The learned Collector after hearing the parties and perusal of record found that the land encroached upon by the petitioner was a valuable part of the land situated in the hospital premises of the Mandi Town and accordingly rejected the appeal vide his orders dated 28.5.1986. Aggrieved by this order of the Sub-Divisional Collector dated 28.5.1986, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Mandi Division on the identical grounds as taken before the Sub-Divisional Collector. The learned Commissioner after hearing the case, dismissed the revision vide his order dated 8.10.1986. The petitioner challenged this order before my predecessor by way of a revision petition which was accepted by him by remanding the case to the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi for decision afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by his orders dated 26.11.1992. 3. At the case was still under consideration of Divisional Commissioner, Mandi the petitioner made another encroachment upon Government land comprised in Khasra No. 1464/3 measuring 40 Sq. Mtrs. by thereon. 3. At the case was still under consideration of Divisional Commissioner, Mandi the petitioner made another encroachment upon Government land comprised in Khasra No. 1464/3 measuring 40 Sq. Mtrs. by thereon. The Assistant Collector issued show cause notice to the petitioner and finally vide his orders dated 23.2.1987, passed ejectment orders against him from this Government land comprising in Khasra No. 1464/3, measuring 40 Sq. Mtrs. situated in Mohal Sain, Tehsil Sadar and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/-. 4. The present petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the Collector Sub-Division, Mandi, who vide his orders dated 7.6.1988 accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Mandi for decision afresh in accordance with law. 5. It appears that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade did not initiate any action for all these years since the passing of the said order by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Mandi on 7.6.1988 and strangely the Commissioner, Mandi Division took suo-motu cognizance of the same matter at the time of hearing and passing the order on revision petition remanded to him by my learned predecessor as referred to above. The learned Commissioner has recommended that by Assistant Collector 1st Grade dated 31.8.1985, 23.2.1987 and those of Collector dated 7.6.1988 be set aside, although there was no appeal/revision before him for setting aside the order dated 7.6.1988 of Sub-Divisional Collector, Mandi, neither petitioner is aggrieved therefrom as his appeal has been accepted by the said order. It is not clear as to how the learned Commissioner took suo motu notice of the matter. Therefore, his recommendation to the extent of setting aside the order 7.6.1988 of Collector Mandi is wholly irrelevant and deserve dismissal. But we are also inclined to set aside the said order for the reasons which the subsequent discussion would show. Consequently, we have not been able to agree to the recommendations made by the learned Commissioner on the other issues also which were subject matter of the revision petition remanded by my learned predecessor to the Commissioner. 6. The case of the petitioner from the begining is that he is a landless person and his encroachment is only over a small piece of land and he does not own any land of his own. 6. The case of the petitioner from the begining is that he is a landless person and his encroachment is only over a small piece of land and he does not own any land of his own. His next contention in the year 1985, when he was initially ejected by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade from the Government land, was that, that he possessed the land adversely for 15-16 years and was entitled for the grant of the said land. The petitioner has also submitted that he is a landless person and the land in question be regularised in his favour. 7. After going through the records of the case and consideration of the submission made by the petitioner, I find myself unable to agree to the contentions made by the petitioner as also the recommendation of the Commissioner The petitioner himself has admitted that he is a Nepali national, working in Mandi town as a labourer, and does not own any land in the state. The recommendation of the Commissioner that fresh enquiry be carried out is misplaced in view of the admission by the petitioner himself that he has constructed a Katcha house on the land in question. Such a recommendation is highly erroneous coupled with the fact that the said petitioner is an outsider, non-agriculturist, in favour of whom no interest in land etc. can be created, neither on the Government land nor on the private lands, in violation of other land laws applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The plea of the petitioner as to regularisation of the encroachment and question of adverse possession are not maintainable before this Court. There is no law that enables this Court to regularise the Government encroachment land in favour of the encroachers. Consequently the revision petition has no force and the recommendation made by the Commissioner, Mandi Division are without any substance and are accordingly turned down. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade Mandi is directed to evict the petitioner from the land in question. 8. Orders be communicated to the parties and the file of this Court be consigned to Record Room after due completion. Revision dismissed.