1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPIL No. 82 of 2022 Date of decision: 21.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Balbir Singh & others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vishali Lakhanpal,Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 7. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) The present Public Interest Litigation has been filed on account of the encroachments made on the land of the Government Senior Secondary School, Jhagriani, Post Office Dhaned, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. 2. The said school is stated to be situated on the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 113, 114, 115 & 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 119 to 128 in Mohal Dhaned Khas, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. The total area of the land of the school is 00-78-59 hectare. It has been averred that hardly 60-70% of boundary of the school is having boundary wall, however, on the rest of the boundary of the school, neither there is any boundary wall nor any fencing, because of the encroachments made by private respondents No. 8 to 11 on the said land. 3. It is pertinent to notice that private respondents No. 8 to 11 have chosen not to put in appearance before this Court and accordingly, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.03.2025. 4. Thus, the prayer in the writ petition has been made that the respondent-State be directed to get the demarcation of the land as such of the school and the encroachments be got removed and the land be restored to the school. 5. Reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4, would go on to show that the stand of the State qua respondent No. 8-Smt. Kamla Devi is that she and 3 her son, namely, Sanjeev Kumar, have encroached upon the suit land in Khasra No. 119/1 upto the extent of 00-00-35 hectares and Khasra No. 119/2 upto the extent of 00-01-02 hectares in the shape of “Gair Mumkin Store and Abadi”. The claim as such of the said respondent is that her son is in possession of the property since the time of his forefathers’ and the matter is pending adjudication in the Civil Court. The said encroachment has also been verified on the basis of the spot visit by the Patwari of the said Circle. 6. As per the status report dated 30.04.2025 filed by the respondents-State, ejectment order had been passed against the said respondent by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Hamirpur on 18.11.2024 in Encroachment Case No. 18/2016 RNT, warrant of ejectment had been issued on 07.03.2025 and the date for execution of warrant of ejectment had been fixed for 17.04.2025. However, on account of the appeal preferred by the said respondent, in which the execution of the ejectment order had been stayed, it has been averred that it will be decided in due course 4 of law. In such circumstances, it is apparent that respondent No. 8 having preferred a legal remedy, is entitled to press for it, in accordance with law. It is, however, made clear that in case the appeal or further proceedings are dismissed, the State shall take appropriate action against respondent No. 8 in pursuance to the ejectment order. 7. It has been averred in the reply that respondent No. 9-Smt. Bhago Devi has removed the encroachment and the proceedings of encroachment initiated against the said respondent were dropped by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur on 01.09.2021 and 24.08.2022 as per Annexure R-III (colly). 8. In the reply, it has been averred regarding respondent No. 10-Smt. Neelam, that proceedings of encroachment initiated against the said respondent had been dropped by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur on 24.08.2022, but as per the status report dated 30.04.2025, encroachment case No. 19 of 2016 had been decided and ejectment 5 order was passed against respondent No. 10 on 17.09.2024, but the said respondent had preferred an appeal and stay order regarding the execution of the ejectment order had been passed by the Appellate Authority on 22.04.2025 in Appeal No. 148/2024. Resultantly, the State will respect the litigation, which has been instituted by the said respondent and take action thereafter, once the proceedings are finalized and in case the ejectment order is upheld, the encroachments be removed by executing the ejectment order. 9. As per the reply regarding respondent No. 11-Ramesh Chand, it has been found that he has not made any encroachment on the suit land. Rather, perusal of the writ petition itself would go on to show that the said respondent had instituted Civil Suit No. 243 of 2003 against the school, which was decreed on 08.01.2013 and in execution, the School Authorities had removed possession of 34 square meters of land in his favour. 6 10. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that closure has to be given to the Public Interest Litigation. Ordered accordingly. 11. It is however, made clear that after finality of the ejectment proceedings and in case these proceedings are finally decided against the private respondents, the respondents-State shall take appropriate steps to fence the school boundary which has been allotted to the school and owned by it, so that such future occurrences do not take place. It is open to the petitioners to place a claim for demarcation, in accordance with law, before the Revenue Authorities, in case they have locus-standi. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. June 21, 2025 (Ranjan Sharma) (hemlata) Judge.