2026:HHC:24089 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2738 of 2018 Decided on: 23rd June, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rekha 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. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner feels aggrieved against orders dated 27.05.2014 passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Joginder Nagar; 11.08.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Joginder Nagar; 24.05.2015 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi and 04.06.2018 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh, 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:24089 whereunder, the petitioner was held to be encroacher over Khasra No.2212/2159/1, measuring 0-5-6 bighas, situated at Village Tikkri Mushehra, Tehsil & District Mandi and accordingly ordered to be ejected. 2(i). Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that all the authorities below have ordered ejectment of the petitioner from the subject land on the ground that in the demarcation carried out by the concerned Tehsildar on 25.11.2013, the petitioner was found to have encroached the government land as described above. Inviting attention to Annexure P-1, an order passed by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Joginder Nagar on 08.11.2013, learned Senior Counsel submitted that demarcation of the subject land was carried out previously, whereunder, respondent No.4 was found to have encroached the subject land, i.e. Khasra No.2212/2159/1 to the extent of 0-4-10 bighas. Respondent No.4 was also found to have encroached other parcels of government land bearing Khasra Nos.2212/2159/2, 2212/2159/3 and 2212/2159/4. The Assistant Collector Second Grade vide his order dated 30.07.2008, had ordered ejectment of respondent No.4 from the above described land including 3 2026:HHC:24089 Khasra No.2212/2159/1. Respondent No.4’s appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Collector Second Grade was disposed of by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Joginder Nagar on 16.11.2009 by remanding the case to the Assistant Collector First Grade, Joginder Nagar for fresh decision. The fresh decision was rendered on 08.11.2013 (Annexure P-1), wherein, respondent No.4 stated that he had not occupied certain parcels of land belonging to the government including Khasra No.2212/2159/1. From perusal of Annexure P-2, it appears that warrant of ejectment was issued against respondent No.4 on 18.11.2013, inter alia, ordering his eviction from several land parcels belonging to the State Government including Khasra No.2212/2159/1. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that even when the above mentioned ejectment order had not been executed on the spot, the respondent- State carried out fresh demarcation on 25.11.2013, wherein, petitioner was held to have encroached Khasra No.2212/2159/1, measuring 0-5-6 bighas. On the basis of this demarcation report, which had been carried out in violation of the prescribed procedure, all the authorities below have held the petitioner to be an encroacher over Khasra No.2212/2159/1, measuring 0-5-6 bighas. 4 2026:HHC:24089 2(ii). Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 defended the impugned orders and submitted that the order passed against respondent No.4 for his ejectment from several land parcels including Khasra No.2212/2159/1 stood implemented on 31.10.2014. That it is the petitioner, who had encroached over Khasra No.2212/2159/1. 2(iii). The impugned orders were defended by the learned Additional Advocate General as well. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. From the case file, it appears that petitioner was found to have encroached the area in question under demarcation conducted on 25.11.2013, whereas, in the previous demarcation, it was respondent No.4, who was found to have encroached the same khasra number to the extent of 0-4-10 bighas. Ejectment order was passed against respondent No.4. Reportedly, the ejectment order passed against respondent No.4 on 08.11.2013 was implemented on spot on 31.10.2014, or in other words, respondent No.4 was in possession of the encroached area including Khasra No.2212/2159/1 at the time when demarcation was carried out on 25.11.2013, whereunder, 5 2026:HHC:24089 petitioner was held to be encroacher over this very area. There seems to be some ambiguity in the demarcations carried out by the respondents. Further, reason for carrying out fresh demarcation on 25.11.2013 is not decipherable from the record. In case, ejectment order dated 08.11.2013 passed against respondent No.4 with respect to Khasra No.2212/2159/1 had been implemented only on 31.10.2014, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have figured as an encroacher over the same very land in the demarcation conducted on 25.11.2013. Be that as it may. Since there appears to be difference in the demarcation reports, interest of justice would be served in case the respondents are directed to conduct fresh demarcation of the area in question after associating all the stakeholders including the petitioner and respondent No.4. Ordered accordingly. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 27.05.2014, 11.08.2014, 24.05.2015 and 04.06.2018 are quashed and set aside. Official respondents are directed to conduct fresh demarcation of the land in question in accordance with law, through the District Revenue Officer, Mandi in presence of all the stakeholders including the petitioner and respondent No.4. This exercise be carried out 6 2026:HHC:24089 within a period of four weeks from today. Consequent action thereupon shall be taken in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 23, 2026 Judge Mukesh