IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 151 of 2025 Decided on : 11.04.2025 Roman Bhakal and Ors. .…Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and Anr. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents/State. 2. Heard. 3. By way of instant petition, petitioners have assailed order dated 18.03.2025, passed by learned 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:10211 ) Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., whereby the prayer of the petitioners herein for staying the operation of order dated 04.03.2025 passed by learned Collector-cum Divisional Forest Officer, Dehra, Forest Division, District Kangra, H.P., under H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (for short ‘Act’), in case No. 01-NS/2024 has been rejected. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1 was elected as President of Gram Panchayat, Sakri, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. The proceedings under the Act were initiated in respect of 00-00-34 hectares of forest land allegedly occupied by construction of cement/concrete road. The order of eviction has been passed in respect of the aforesaid piece of land. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have wrongly been alleged to have constructed the cement/concrete road on the forest land. Their case is that the road was constructed by the Gram Sabha, 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:10211 ) Sakri even before the election of petitioner No. 1 as President of said Gram Panchayat. 6. As a consequence of the aforesaid eviction order dated 04.03.2025, an order has also been passed against petitioner No. 1, removing her from the post of President-ship with the allegation that she was found to be encroacher upon the forest land. 7. Petitioners on one hand have assailed their eviction order in appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala and simultaneously the order of removal of petitioner No. 1 from the post of President, Gram Panchayat, Sakri, has been challenged before the competent authority under the Panchayati Raj Act i.e. Director, Panchayati Raj. The order of removal of petitioner No. 1, is stated to have been stayed by the Director Panchyati Raj. 8. Obviously, petitioner No.1 or other petitioners cannot have any right to protect the encroachment, if any, on the forest land. However, their right to prove that the wrong was not 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:10211 ) committed by them always will remain there and an adjudication on such an issue has to be made in accordance with law. 9. In view of what has been observed above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, however, this will not mean that any adjudication has been made on the rights of the parties, which will be done by the appropriate authorities i.e. The Divisional Commissioner, in appeal filed before him against the order of eviction dated 04.03.2025 and by the Director, Panchayati Raj, in an appeal filed before him under the provisions of Panchayati Raj Act. In both these proceedings, petitioners shall be heard before taking any final decision in accordance with law. 10. The petition, is accordingly, disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application, if any. (Satyen Vaidya) 11th April, 2025 Judge (sushma)