ORDER : Heard. By way of instant petition, the petitioners have prayed for the grant of following reliefs:- i) That the respondents may be directed to provide the compensation to the petitioners against their only houses/structures built up on Khasra no. 209/2015 in Village Toba, Tehsil, Shri Naina Devi ji at Swarghat, Distt. Bilaspur under the right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 like the cases of land acquisition in the construction of four land from Kiratpur to Manali (annexure P/1 further the notice dated 20.07.2021 (annexure P-3 and further proceedings in view of annexure P/3 may be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. 2. Petitioners claim to be in possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 209/15/1 measuring 3-07 Bighas, situated at Toba Sangwana, Tehsil Shri Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh along with structures thereon. State of Himachal Pradesh is recorded owner of said land. An area measuring 1-05 Bighas of this land has been diverted for public purpose i.e. construction of Bhanupalli-Bilaspur-Beri, Broad Gauge Railway Line. 3. The Assistant Collector- II Grade, Shri Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, H.P has initiated proceedings against the petitioners under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, for their eviction from above mentioned land measuring 03-07 bighas, vide case No. 02/2021. The petitioners have been issued show cause notice in aforesaid proceedings. 4. The relevant extract from paragraph 14 of instant petition is being reproduces hereunder to highlight the admission made by them as to their status on the land in question: “Presently the State of Himachal Pradesh, through various proceedings is attempting to vacate the petitioners from the possession of their lands/homes. Though the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of Government and other lands belonging to the State, the petitioners are entitled to protection of their life and liberty as guaranteed under the Constitution of India……..” In response to show-cause notice issued to the petitioners by Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Shri Naina Devi Ji, they have raised the plea of having acquired title on the land involved in said proceedings, by way of adverse possession. Thus, the petitioners admit themselves to be unauthorised occupiers of land in question. 5. The relief sought by the petitioners in the present petition is twofold. Thus, the petitioners admit themselves to be unauthorised occupiers of land in question. 5. The relief sought by the petitioners in the present petition is twofold. Firstly the petitioners have sought directions against the respondents to pay compensation to them under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “Act”) and secondly the petitioners have sought quashing of show cause notice, dated 20.07.2021, issued by Assistant Collector- II Grade, Shri Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur as also the further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereto. 6. The encroacher on government land, or for that matter, on the land of any other person, has no right to remain in such possession, unless the owner of such land consents. The only protection of law available to the encroachers is that they have to be evicted only in accordance with the process established by law. In the instant case, the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners under Section 163 of H.P. Land Revenue Act, which provides for eviction of encroachers from Government land. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners by the Assistant Collector-II Grade, Shri Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, thus, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Petitioners have no right to obstruct such lawful proceedings initiated against them in any manner, whatsoever, much less by seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court in CWP No. 3821 of 2021, titled as Harnam Singh alias Rinku Chandel vs. State of H.P. & ors, decided on 19.07.2021, has held as under:- "12. This Court is dealing with public property, wherein the public has interest and it is more than settled that private interest must yield to public interest. The petitioner even as per his admitted case is an encroacher and it is more than settled that right and title of the State cannot be permitted to be destroyed so as to give an upper hand to the encroachers, unauthorized occupants or land grabbers. 16. State is ordinarily rated as virtuous litigant and it goes without saying that the property recorded in government khata is the property of the public at large and, therefore, cannot be jeopardized by an individual or handful of people. 16. State is ordinarily rated as virtuous litigant and it goes without saying that the property recorded in government khata is the property of the public at large and, therefore, cannot be jeopardized by an individual or handful of people. The Court while dealing with a dispute involving public property should be at guard against any fraud, collusion and concoction militating against the fair play of justice jeopardizing the interest of the State. 18. There has to be zero tolerance on the part of the Court when it gets down to decide cases of unauthorized encroachments, obstructions and illegal constructions, violation of statutory plans and schemes. Therefore, even on the ground of sympathy, the Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner or else such direction would be blatant violation of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and grant of any relief to the petitioner is not only impermissible, but would even amount to judicial impropriety, blatant and scant respect for the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which otherwise are binding upon this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 20. It is not only high time but it is necessary to discourage encroachers immediately to such unlawful activities of encroaching on government land, that too, on the National Highways and though raise structures like dhaba, restaurant etc. over these land in order to make huge profit. It is on account of higher returns, such illegal encroachments are carried out over the prime properties on the National Highways and structures are constructed thereupon by the unscrupulous persons, without any right. Therefore, all such cases of illegal encroachments, unauthorised constructions have to be dealt with sternly and swiftly. Social justice will continue to be perpetrated with impunity. Merely because someone is economically weak and has no adequate means of livelihood, will not give him a right to encroach and erect structures on any public place or else there will be a complete breakdown of law and order and chaos, which shall be extremely detrimental to the interest of the society. 7. As regards other reliefs, the petitioners again have failed to make out any ground. The Act nowhere provides for any compensation to be paid to encroachers on the government land. 7. As regards other reliefs, the petitioners again have failed to make out any ground. The Act nowhere provides for any compensation to be paid to encroachers on the government land. Neither the petitioners are owners of the land in question nor have any other right to possess the same, as has emerged from records as well as admissions made by the petitioners. Petitioners also do not fall within the definition of affected families. That being so, the claim of petitioners for compensation under the Act is not only highly misconceived but malafide also. 8. The contention of the petitioners that while acquiring the land for the purposes of Kiratpur-Manali National Highway, the National Highway Authority of India has paid compensation, even to the persons, who had their houses on Government land, also needs rejection. As noticed above, the Act nowhere provides for compensation to encroachers on Government land either for their possession or the assets created by them on such encroached land. The averments made by the petitioners with respect to the grant of compensation by National Highway Authority of India and the documents relied upon by them does not conclusively establish the plea of the petitioners. However, assuming that National Highway Authority of India has paid any compensation in the manner as alleged by petitioners, the same cannot be a precedent. There cannot be any claim on the basis of negative parity. 9. In light of above discussions, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.