1 2026:HHC:23230 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15978 of 2025 Decided on: 19.06.2026 Satya Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Verender Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge While giving effect to orders passed in proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 163 of H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 (in short, the Act), the respondents demolished the encroachment made by the petitioner over the government land. The petitioner, now seeks direction to permit her to construct a retaining wall allegedly to safeguard her house over the very land belonging to government from which encroachment made by her in the form of septic tank was demolished. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:23230 3. Proceedings under Section 163 of the Act were initiated against the petitioner for ejectment from land comprised in Khata No.283 min, Khatauni No. 715 min, Khasra No. 1518/1, measuring 00-00-48 hectares situated at Mauja Yol, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. where the petitioner had unauthorizedly constructed a septic tank. After following the procedure in accordance with law, as detailed in para-3 of the reply filed to the writ petition on behalf of respondents No. 1, 3, 4 & 5 on the affidavit of Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, the ejectment order was passed against the petitioner from the encroached land on 17.09.2024. Warrant of ejectment was issued on 20.11.2024. The encroachment was removed on 27.01.2025. Against the ejectment order dated 17.09.2024, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Collector, Dharamshala on 25.03.2025. Appeal was dismissed on 17.09.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a retaining wall had been in existence for last many years over the land in question. The respondent while executing the ejectment order have demolished the said retaining wall exposing petitioner’s house to soil erosion. That petitioner is entitled to the benefit of State decision conveyed in Annexure P-2 dated 03.01.1979 to the effect 3 2026:HHC:23230 that retaining wall raised by private individuals over government land forming part of ‘shamlat’ land, be not felled under the provisions of Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. 4. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, following order was passed in this matter on 25.05.2026:- “Learned vice counsel for the petitioner submits that while executing the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Dharamshala, the respondents also demolished a retaining wall supporting petitioner’s house. Placing reliance upon the notification appended at Annexure P-2, the petitioner seeks permission to reconstruct the retaining wall at her own expense. Let learned Additional Advocate General to obtain instructions in the matter by the next date. List on 18.06.2026.” Pursuant thereto, learned Assistant Advocate General placed on record instructions dated 18.06.2026 to the effect that petitioner had not constructed any retaining wall as alleged in the petition; The construction in question was in the nature of latrine pit (septic tank). No civil protection wall such as retaining wall had been raised by the petitioner. Relevant portions from the instructions are as under:- “1. Nature of construction on spot It is submitted that the petitioner has not constructed any retaining wall as alleged in the petition. As is clearly evident from the record and 4 2026:HHC:23230 specifically from para-6 of the reply being filed to the plaint, the construction in question is in the nature of a latrine pit and not a retaining wall as being projected by the petitioner. 2. Factual position as per site and record. The spot position as well as the departmental verification makes it abundantly clear that the structure raised is a sanitation- related pit structure and not a civil protection work such as retaining wall. The averments made by the petitioner in this regard are therefore misconceived and contrary to the factual position. 3. Resolution of Gram panchayat. It is further submitted that the Gram panchayat concerned has also passed a resolution (annexed with the reply as Annexure R-3/5), which supports the stand of the respondents and clearly reflects the correct nature of the construction existing at the site. 4. Conclusion/ prayer for consideration In view of the above factual position supported by record, site inspection and panchayat resolution, it is requested that the stand of the respondents may kindly be placed before the Hon’ble Court accordingly and the petition may be decided in accordance with law.” Petitioner had unauthorizedly constructed a septic tank over the land in question and not retaining wall. Further, septic tank was constructed by the petitioner by encroaching over the land belonging to the government not over the ‘shamlat’ land. There is no document on record suggesting to the contrary. While taking recourse to proceedings under Section 163 of the Act, ejectment order was passed against the petitioner on 17.09.2025 which has admittedly been implemented 5 2026:HHC:23230 on the spot. In any case, it was for the petitioner to contest the proceedings before the concerned Court by taking all available defences including applicability of the notification (asserted now), which the petitioner apparently failed to do. Alongwith the reply filed by the respondents, ‘tatima’ has also been placed on record as Annexure R-3/4 with the pleadings that encroached area actually fell in a ‘nalah’ and in this regard a proposal/ resolution dated 11.07.2024 of Gram Panchayat, Rakkar, Development Block, Dharamshala (Annexure R-3/5) had also been received conveying that due to formation of pit in the drain near the petitioner’s house (septic tank), the condition of the road had become bad, damaged and dangerous. In view of above, petitioner cannot be permitted to encroach and raise construction over the government land that too in ‘nallah’ when after following the procedure as per law, encroachment made by the petitioner in form of septic tank from that very land was demolished & removed by the respondents. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that this order has been passed only for adjudicating the grievance raised in this writ petition and shall have no effect on the statutory remedies, if any, available to the 6 2026:HHC:23230 petitioner against the orders passed against her under Section 163 of the Act. Same shall be decided in accordance with their own merits without being influenced by this order. Further, it shall also be open for the petitioner to raise construction in order to protect her property, on her owned land in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 19, 2026 Judge yogesh