( 2026:HHC:33264 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8940/2026 Decided on: 10.08.2026 Rameshwar Dass …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. .....Respondent ………………………………………………………………………………… Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Eviction proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Sections 5 & 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises & Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1971. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Rohru, on 13.12.2022, ordered eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question. Petitioner’s appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, on 22.05.2025. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:33264 ) 3. The case set up by the respondent in the eviction proceedings preferred against the petitioner was that during the settlement operations conducted by the Settlement Department, encroachment by the present petitioner upon Government land comprised in Khasra No. 1463/11, measuring 36-00 hectares, situated at Mauza NAC Gangtoli, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., was detected. Based upon this, eviction petition was preferred by the State Public Works Department. The petitioner took the stand that he was not associated during the demarcation proceedings; He was owner of the adjoining land; and that he had not encroached upon the Government land, as alleged by the respondent. A specific defence was taken by the petitioner that neither the land owned and possessed by him had been legally measured with the help of old records, nor the location of the land had been demarcated after fixing permanent points; He also asserted that the area of his owned land had been unlawfully decreased by the settlement officials; The petitioner had been in possession of the same land throughout; Since, in the revenue records, the area of his owned land had been decreased, but his possession continued over the same area as heretofore, he was illegally presumed to be an encroacher upon the land in question. 4. Learned Courts below did not find favour with arguments raised by the petitioner for necessity of carrying out the demarcation of the land in the presence of the petitioner. It was also held that the 3 ( 2026:HHC:33264 ) existing settlement records must be presumed to be correct, even if the fresh settlement operations had not yet been finalized. In terms of the settlement records, the petitioner had come out as an encroacher upon the subject land. The Collector as well as the Divisional Commissioner confirmed the petitioner to be an encroacher upon the subject land and ordered his eviction. 5. During hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the recorded owner of Khasra No. 414/112/1/2, measuring 4 biswas, i.e. 150 sq. meters. The petitioner had purchased this land through a registered sale deed dated 07.01.1977 (Annexure P-3). On the basis of the said sale deed, Mutation No. 4954 was attested on 10.01.1977 (Annexure P-4). In the settlement conducted in 2015-16, the area of Khasra No. 414/112/1/2 was wrongly reduced to 89.78 sq. meters (Annexure P-5). Petitioner's ownership, ever since, had been wrongly reduced by 60.22 sq. meters. Accordingly, the respondent had wrongly treated it to be a case of unauthorized occupation of 36 sq. meters in the eviction proceedings instituted against him. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has already taken appropriate recourse by moving an application dated 13.01.2022 (Annexure P-6) before the concerned Settlement Collector, Shimla, for correction of the error in the revenue record. 4 ( 2026:HHC:33264 ) The above contention of the petitioner was noted in the order dated 15.06.2026 passed in the present writ petition, pursuant to which the respondent was directed to obtain instructions and also file reply to the writ petition. The respondent, in its instructions as also in its reply, has not denied that the petitioner had purchased 4 biswas, i.e. 150 sq. meters of land comprised in Khasra No. 414/112/1/2 under a registered sale deed dated 07.01.1977. Attestation of Mutation No. 4954 dated 10.01.1977 on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed in favour of the petitioner is also an admitted position. According to the respondent, the area of the aforesaid Khasra number was reduced in compliance to the order passed in Correction Case No. 11/09 dated 24.09.2013 by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade (Sainj), Settlement Department. It has also come out in the reply that though the aforesaid order was passed in presence of the petitioner, he had objected to the passing of the said order. It is also a matter of record that the petitioner has already moved an application for correcting the alleged error in the revenue record. Perusal of the impugned orders reveals that the above aspect has not at all been considered by the authorities while ordering petitioner’s eviction from the land in question. In case, petitioner's assertions are found to be correct, the same would prima facie lead to the conclusion that he had purchased 150 sq. meters of land under a registered sale deed, which was duly reflected in the revenue record by 5 ( 2026:HHC:33264 ) attestation of the corresponding mutation, and which held the field for around 40 years. The area under the ownership of the petitioner was, however, reflected differently in the settlement conducted in 2015-16. Since the petitioner continued to be in possession of the same area as purchased by him under the sale deed in question, it became a case of occupation of an area more than recorded under the recent settlement carried out in 2015-16. Presumably, on this basis, the respondent initiated eviction proceedings against him. Despite the petitioner having raised this objection before the authorities, viz. the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) as also the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, the same was not examined in accordance with law and, resultantly, its impact upon the eviction petition filed by the State Public Works Department was also not considered. All these facts are required to be gone into by the concerned authorities before returning findings of the petitioner being an encroacher upon the subject land. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Rohru, District Shimla, as affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla vide order dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-8), are set aside with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Rohru, to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the said Court on 01.09.2026. 6 ( 2026:HHC:33264 ) The instant petition to stand disposed of in above terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 10th August, 2026 (rohit)