IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.621/2018 Date of Decision:.20.08.2025 Chhavi Ram .....Petitioner Versus State of HP & Ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Varun Chauhan, Addl. Advocate General. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral). The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition seeking substantive reliefs:- (i) That impugned order dated 06.06.2017 passed by the Collector, Sarkaghat (Annexure P-6) and order dated 22.06.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assistant Collector Grade 1, order dated 23.09.015 passed by Sub Divisional Collector (Annexure P-2), order dated 19.05.2015 passed by the Divisional Commissioner (Annexure P-3), Order dated 27.09.2016 passed by Financial Commissioner (Annexure P-4), may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing writ of certiorari and justice may be done. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (ii) That the directions may kindly be issued to respondent No.2 to carry out the fresh demarcation of the property in accordance with the procedure and law.” 2. As evident from the documents placed on record, the petitioner had assailed the aforesaid orders passed by the concerned authorities by filing CWP No.617 of 2017, which was decided on 18.05.2017, on the basis of instructions received by the learned counsel for petitioner, communicated to the Court, which reads as follows:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, submits that petitioner shall be content if a direction is issued to the respondents-authorities to consider the petitioner’s request, which he would be making, venting out his grievances emanating from the impugned order dated 22.6.2015 (Annexure P-1), passed by Assistant Collector, Grade-1, order dated 23.9.2015, passed by Sub Divisional Collector (Annexure P-2), order dated 19.5.2015, passed by the Divisional Commissioner (Annexure P-3) and order dated 27.9.2016, passed by Financial Commissioner (Annexure P-4). As such, as prayed for, we disposed of the present petition with a direction to the petitioner to approach the authorities concerned, within a period of one week. As and when any such request is received, we are hopeful that the authorities shall consider the same dispassionately, taking into account the hardships of the petitioner, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks thereafter. Needless to add, if the order is not in favour of the petitioner, the authority 3 shall assign reasons while deciding the same, which shall be communicated to the petitioner.” 3. In sequel and compliance of the aforesaid order dated 18.05.2017, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the Sub Divisional Collector Sarkaghat, District Mandi, HP, which was rejected by the Sub Divisional Collector vide impugned order dated 06.06.2017, which had also been assailed in the present petition. 4. As per the representation made by him, the petitioner was asserting his right to retain the Government land in his unauthorized possession on the basis of the draft notification of Government of HP, Department of Revenue No.Rev.B.A.(2)- 4/2015 dated 19.04.2017. 5. Learned Advocate General has informed this Court, as also stated by him in CWP No.1028 of 2002, titled Punam Gupta and Anr. Vs. State of HP and Ors; CWP No. 179 of 2017, titled Rajiv vs. State of HP and other connected matters decided on 26.9.2024; CWP No. 685 of 2017, titled Bahadur Singh vs. State decided on 23.10.2024; and CWP No.2317 of 2025, titled Jagdish vs. State of HP and others connected matters decided on 18.6.2025, that State Government is not going to finalize or frame any Rules for regularization of encroachment on the basis of Draft Rules published vide Notification dated 19.4.2017 or otherwise and, as on date, there is no proposal pending with this Government 4 for framing any Rule or framing Policy for regularization of encroachment. 6. It is also apt to record that after the judgment dated 05.08.2025 passed in CWP No.1028 of 2002, whereby the Himachal Pradesh Regularization of Encroachments (in certain cases) on Government Land and Disposal of Government Land Rules, 2002, have been quashed and set aside by this Court, there is no policy in vogue to regularize the unauthorized possession of any encroacher, including petitioner, on the government land. 7. Representation of the petitioner was also rejected by the Sub Divisional Collector on the ground that there was no policy in existence at the time of making and deciding the representation and the prayer of the petitioner to regularize the encroachment on the basis of draft policy, could not be acted upon and, therefore, his representation was rejected. 8. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order dated 06.06.2017, passed by the Sub Divisional Collector Sarkaghat, District Mandi, HP. 9. So far as prayer of petitioner to demarcate his/government property before his eviction is concerned, it is needless to say that the concerned Tehisldar shall ensure proper verification of encroached land by conducting demarcation of the land in reference in accordance with law on 5 or before 30.09.2025 and, thereafter, in case petitioner is found in unauthorized possession of the Government land, he shall be evicted forthwith. Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms along with pending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 20th August, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)