Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 507 (HP)

Samu Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-26

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “That the impugned order dated 11.12.2023 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the ejectment order dated 28.04.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Collector Pooh, may kindly be quashed and set aside.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 11.12.2023, Annexure P-5 passed in Revision Petition No.50 of 2022, in terms whereof, the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner against the earlier orders passed by the Authorities in terms whereof, the petitioner is held to be an encroacher upon the Government land and ordered to be evicted there from, has been up held by the learned Revisional Authority. 3. The case of the petitioner is that in lieu of land donated by him for the purpose of the construction of a primary health centre, Gram Panchayat assured him that he shall be granted alternative land. The petitioner was also assured that he could take possession of Government land and thereafter, formalities shall be undergone and Deputy Commissioner/Collector of the District shall be requested to make necessary incorporation in the revenue record reflecting the land to be in the name of the petitioner as its owner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was on the assurance of the Gram Panchayat that the petitioner occupied the land in question and, therefore, he cannot be termed to be an encroacher. Learned counsel drew attention of the Court to the documents appended with the petition, i.e. two resolutions passed by Gram Panchayat Giaboung dated 02.10.2018 and 25.11.2017 and submitted that it is apparent and evident from said resolutions of the Gram Panchayat that it resolved and recommended that Nautor be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, learned counsel argued that as the act of the petitioner of occupying the Government land was a bona fide act and as this extremely important aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the Authorities, the petition be allowed and the impugned order(s) be set aside. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner has been held to be a rank encroacher by all the authorities, in the proceedings which were initiated against him under the H.P. Land Revenue Act. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner has been held to be a rank encroacher by all the authorities, in the proceedings which were initiated against him under the H.P. Land Revenue Act. He submitted that no assurance was ever given to the petitioner by any of the Government Authorities as alleged by the petitioner and the act of the petitioner of encroaching upon the Government land cannot be condoned simply because he might have donated some land for the construction of a primary health centre. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that even otherwise in the exercise of its power of judicial review, all that this Court can go into is the legality of the order impugned from the procedural perspective and it is not as if, this Court will act as an Appellate Authority so as to re- appreciate the evidence. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that in the course of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out that the orders passed by the Authorities were perverse being contrary to the record and, therefore, as there is no merit in the petition, he urges that the same be dismissed. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that the land, which the petitioner now intends to forgo in favour of the Government in lieu of the encroached Government land, is not owned by him as the sole owner. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner has not only encroached upon the Government land, but has also constructed a building thereupon which stands rented out by him to various persons. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as respondent No.2 is a co-sharer of the land, which the petitioner intends to forgo in favour of the Government, which the petitioner cannot unilaterally do, therefore, as the petitioner otherwise has been found to be a rank encroacher upon the Government land and as there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities, this petition be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 7. The factum of the land being encroached upon by the petitioner is not in dispute. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 7. The factum of the land being encroached upon by the petitioner is not in dispute. The contention of the petitioner, as urged by his counsel is that possession of the land was bonafidely taken by the petitioner as he was assured by the Panchayat that in lieu of the land he had donated for the construction of the primary health centre, the petitioner shall be rehabilitated on this land and appropriate request in this regard shall be made to the Collector concerned. The submissions so made by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner could not be substantiated by the petitioner. The resolutions, upon which reliance has been placed by the petitioner, do not give any licence to the petitioner to encroach upon any Government land as has been done in the present case. At the most, all that was recommended by the Gram Panchayat Giaboung was that it would persuade the Deputy Commissioner to consider the case of the petitioner for the grant of Nautor land. Whether or not such kind of resolutions could have been passed by the Panchayat is also an issue which requires consideration for the reason that grant of Nautor to a person is determined by the Rules and policy regulating the field and not the whims of any Gram Panchayat. 8. Be that as it may, coming back to the order impugned, as it could not be demonstrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner indeed had not encroached upon the land from which he has been ordered to be evicted and as it could not be demonstrated during the course of arguments that the findings returned in the impugned order were perverse or contrary to the record, therefore, as this Court does not finds any merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that dismissal of this petition should not come in the way of the adjudication of representation of the petitioner which is pending with the Deputy Commissioner for grant of Nautor land. All that this Court can observe is that the representation of the petitioner be decided by the Deputy Commissioner in accordance with law. All that this Court can observe is that the representation of the petitioner be decided by the Deputy Commissioner in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.