IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 7551 of 2022 Decided on 11th March 2025 Shri Ranjit Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate, with M/s Ajeet Pal Singh and Pranjal Munjal, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) “To quash and set aside order dated 27.12.2021 passed by respondent No.3 and consequently to dismiss the appeal filed by respondent No.5 and further to uphold the order passed by respondent No.4 on 03.10.2019 by directing the eviction of respondent No.5 or in the alternative. (b) To pass appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly writ of mandamus may be issued against respondent No.4 directing it to initiate proceedings for eviction under the provisions of the Act by issuing notice 2 under Section 4 of the Act afresh in accordance with law.” 2. The petitioner has challenged order passed by the Appellate Authority under the provisions of The Himachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), dated 27.12.2021, in terms whereof, the appeal preferred by the private respondent against the order of eviction passed against him was accepted by the leaned Appellate Authority. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has taken a serious objection with regard to the locus of the petitioner to file and maintain the present writ petition. She has vehemently argued that under the provisions of HP Public Premises Act, the order passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be allowed to be challenged by the present petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that as the proceedings were initiated against the private respondent on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner, therefore, but natural, he has the locus to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court when the Appellate Authority has taken a call in the appeal, which is not sustainable in law. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that it is a question of Public Premises 3 and the petitioner has the locus to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court in such like cases. 5. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the impugned order. Perusal thereof demonstrates that the appeal filed by the private respondent against the order of eviction was allowed by the Appellate Authority inter alia on the ground that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the HP Public Premises Act were not in consonance with the statutory scheme of the Act. 6. Incidentally, a perusal of the reply filed to the writ petition by the respondents-State demonstrates that its stand therein is that the Authorities intend to initiate fresh proceedings against the encroacher/private respondent in accordance with law. 7. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the private respondent has submitted that in an around the area which is alleged to be encroached by the petitioner, there is land of the private respondent and part thereof has been utilized by the respondents-State for the purpose of the construction of a road without acquiring the same and compensating the private respondent. She further apprised the Court that the private respondent has taken up the issue with the Authorities concerned 4 and the matter for exchange of land in this regard is under the consideration of the Authorities concerned and is presently pending with the Principal Secretary Public Works Department to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Accordingly, she submits that the Court may not make any observation which may prejudice the said case of the private respondent. 8. This Court is of the considered view that in the light of the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed primarily on the ground that there were statutory defects in the proceedings which were initiated against the private respondent under the provisions of the HP Public Premises Act, it would be in the interest of justice in case this petition is put to a quietus with the observation that in case the respondents-State so desires, they may proceed against the private respondent strictly in accordance with law. However, this observation made by the Court should not be construed as if this Court has held that the private respondent has indeed encroached upon any Government land. It is also simultaneously observed that the application of the private respondent, if any, pending with the Authorities qua the exchange of land be also deal with in accordance with law and the observations made by the Court in the above part of this order should not be taken as an estoppel and the Authorities concerned may deal with 5 the application strictly as per law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 11, 2025 (Vinod)