2025:HHC:23578 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11659 of 2025 Decided on: 21.07.2025 Azam Khan and others … Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. : Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No. 4 Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is therefore more respectfully prayed that in view of the facts and circumstanced, grounds made in the petition and law applicable in the case in hand, this writ petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 20.3.2024 passed by the Ld. Financial commissioner(Appeal) Shimla H.P. in Revision Petition No. 375/2023 and order dated commissioner in Revision petition No.320/2010 and a the order of Sub Divisional Collector, Nahan, Sirmaur, H.P. dated 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:23578 19.10.2010 passed in case No52/2010, as well as the eviction order date 22.10.2009 passed by the Ld. A.C.1st Grade Nahan in case No.98/1997 titled as State of H.P. versus Bundu Khan, may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction and dismiss the eviction petition filed under section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act against the petitioner.” 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the Authorities, in terms whereof they have been ordered to be ejected from the land and house that has been constructed on the government land by way of encroachment. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Courts erred in not appreciating that the petitioners were owner of the property, which was earlier owned by the Municipal Committee, Nahan, as was also evident from the judgment passed by learned Civil Court, in Civil Suit No. 22-1/84, decided on 12.09.1986 (copy of judgment is appended with the petition as Annexure P-3). He submitted that the Authorities erred in ordering the eviction of the petitioners and they ignored the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Annexure P-3) and on this count, he prayed that the petition deserves to be allowed as prayed for. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and having perused the documents appended with the petition, including 3 2025:HHC:23578 the judgment passed by learned Civil Judge as well as the order passed by the Revenue Authorities under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, this Court does not concur with the petitioners. A perusal of the judgment passed by learned Civil Court passed in Civil Suit No. 22- 1/84, titled as Bundu Khan vs. State of H.P. and another, demonstrates that no declaration was given by the learned Civil Court to the effect that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was the absolute owner of the suit land, as was argued by learned Counsel for the petitioners. The judgment that was passed by learned Civil Court was a judgment so passed on the basis of a compromise, as was entered between the parties. It was conditional, as would be evident from para-5 thereof, which is quoted herein below:- “5. Keeping in view the compromise between the parties on the basis of conciliation, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and a decree for declaration that to the effect that the orders of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Nahan and Collector Nahan dated 8.12.80 and 30.6.83 respectively are null and void and inoperative qua the rights, title or the plaintiff qua the land comprised, in Khata Khatauni No.161/326, Khasra No, 25 Min, present shown as khasra No.722,723 and 724 measuring 166.88. square meters, situated in Mohal Dhabon, Tehsil Nahan Distt. Sirmaur and the plaintiff is held to have became the owner and in possession of the said property, 4 2025:HHC:23578 restraining the defendants from implementing the of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade/Collector Nahan as stated above on payment of Rs.3912/- in all to the municipal committee Nahan i.e defendant No.2 within four month from today, failing which the suit of the plaintiff will be deemed to have been dismissed in passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Keeping in view all the facts, and circumstances of the case parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet he drawn accordingly. File after completion be consigned in the record room. 4. It is a matter of record and was fairly conceded by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the amount as mentioned in the judgment, was not deposited by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners with Municipal Committee, Nahan. It is thereafter that proceedings were initiated against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners for his eviction from the government land, which have culminated into the impugned orders. In fact, in the light of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners not having complied with the terms which led to passing of the judgment by the learned Civil Court, no perversity can be attributed to the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, in terms whereof, the petitioners now have been ordered to be evicted from the government land. The orders being strictly in consonance with the record of the case and more so, as the petitioners are now estopped from agitating the issue any 5 2025:HHC:23578 further as the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners failed to comply with the terms of the judgment passed by learned Civil Court, no reliefs, as prayed for, can be granted to them. In the light of above discussion, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 21, 2025 (narender)