2025:HHC:28370 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 5233 of 2020 Decided on : 21.08.2025 Ramesh Kumar. …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the eviction proceedings initiated against the petitioner in terms of Annexure P-5, dated 03.09.2020, under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the initiation of said proceedings was bad in the light of the fact that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:28370 in CWP No. 2559 of 2018, titled Vimla Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 17.12.2018, along-with other connected matter (Annexure P-3), was pleased to order in the cases of persons similarly situated as the petitioner that as the State Government was to take decision with regard to regularization of such like encroachments, therefore, till a final decision in this regard is taken, status quo be maintained by the parties, of the suit property. 3. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General, submitted that the Policy, that was framed by the Government in this regard and which was subject matter of CWP No. 1028 of 2022, titled Punam Gupta & anr. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., has been disposed of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on 05.08.2025 and in terms whereof, this Policy of Regularization has been held to be bad in law. He further submitted that in the light of this development, the Government as of now is not ceased with any Policy vis-a-vis the regularization of encroachments. 4. Taking into consideration the submission of learned Assistant Advocate General, this petition is disposed of with the 3 2025:HHC:28370 direction that let the proceedings which were initiated against the against the petitioner under Section 163 of the Act, be taken to their conclusion, in accordance with law, after affording appropriate opportunity to the petitioner to file his reply, if not already filed. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case and proceedings under Section 163 of the Act be decided on its own merit. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 21, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)