( 2026:HHC:10263 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4560/2026 Decided on: 06.04.2026 Bhag Chand …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Loveneesh Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Notice confined to respondents No.1 to 4, which is waived by Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General. The interest of the petitioner is common to that of proforma respondents No. 5 to 17, who were petitioners along with present petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi in Appeal No. 240/2022 (old) 63/2025 (new). The interest of proforma respondents No. 5 to 17 being common with that of the petitioner, there is no necessity to issue notice of this petition to the aforesaid proforma respondents, more so, taking into consideration the nature 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2026:HHC:10263 ) of the grievance raised by the petitioner, the impugned orders passed by the authorities, and the order being passed hereinafter, which is not against the interest of proforma respondents No. 5 to 17. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard at this stage. 2(i) Proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act were initiated and notice was issued to Sh. Bhag Chand S/o Shri Hukme Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and proforma respondents, for alleged encroachment by him over land comprised in Khasra No. 488 at Mohal Kotadhar, Sub Tehsil Aut, District Mandi. On the basis of the demarcation of the land conducted on 06.03.2012, the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Aut, District Mandi on 12.03.2012 passed an order for ejectment of the aforesaid Sh. Bhag Chand as an unauthorized occupant. 2(ii) Sh. Bhag Chand appealed against the order dated 12.03.2012 before the Collector Sub Division Sadar Mandi, District Mandi. The Sub Division Collector allowed the appeal preferred by Sh. Bhag Chand on 24.07.2013 inter alia holding that “there is difference of land measuring 15 Biswansis as stated in the demarcation report dated 06.03.2012 and as mentioned in the impugned order………….. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am 3 ( 2026:HHC:10263 ) led to believe that the impugned order is not as per law and is required to be set aside. The appeal is therefore allowed……….Assistant Collector 2nd Grade Aut is directed to decide the case afresh, strictly as per provisions contained in Section 163 of the Act and to afford opportunity of being heard to the appellant………..” 2(iii) It appears that, pursuant to an order passed by the National Green Tribunal in Sundar Singh vs. State of H.P.,2 the respondent–Forest Department initiated proceedings under the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 against Sh. Bhag Chand. An encroachment report was furnished on 01.02.2021. A show cause notice was accordingly issued to Sh. Bhag Chand on 18.03.2021 as to why eviction order be not passed against him. Sh. Bhag Chand furnished his response to the show cause notice on 19.07.2021. The parties led evidence in support of their respective stands. The Collector, Forest Division Mandi, on 17.08.2022, held Sh. Bhag Chand to be in unauthorized possession of the suit land and ordered his eviction. While passing this order, the Collector, Mandi Forest Division, observed that the eviction of Sh. Bhag Chand had already been ordered by the Assistant Collector Second Grade on 12.03.2012. 2 OA No. 13/2020 decided on 24.09.2020 4 ( 2026:HHC:10263 ) 2(iv) The above order passed by the Collector, Mandi Forest Division, was assailed by the legal representatives of late Sh. Bhag Chand (the present petitioner and proforma respondents) before the Divisional Commissioner by filing an appeal under Section 9(2)(a) of the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971. The Divisional Commissioner dismissed the appeal, observing that there was no reason to interfere with the well reasoned and speaking order passed by the Collector, Mandi Forest Division, and that the eviction order against the petitioner was based upon legal demarcation of the land conducted on 06.03.2012. 2(v) It is in the above backdrop that the legal representatives of late Sh. Bhag Chand feel aggrieved against the eviction order passed by the Collector Mandi Forest Division on 17.08.2022 and by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi on 09.12.2025 and have preferred this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. The Divisional Commissioner has dismissed the appeal preferred by the legal representatives of late Sh. Bhag Chand primarily on two grounds, i.e., (i) The order impugned before him passed by the Collector, Mandi Forest Division on 17.08.2022, was reasoned and speaking; and (ii) The demarcation conducted on 5 ( 2026:HHC:10263 ) 06.03.2012 had established unauthorized possession of late Sh. Bhag Chand/his legal representatives over the land in question. The aforesaid conclusions drawn by the Divisional Commissioner cannot be said to be justified. The order passed by the Collector, Mandi Forest Division on 17.08.2022 is way short of being termed as a reasoned and speaking order. In fact, the order is absolutely non-speaking, as no reasons have been assigned for allowing the complaint preferred by the respondent–Forest Department. The order simply falls back upon the previous order passed by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Sub Tehsil Aut, on 12.03.2012, whereunder the eviction order was passed against late Sh. Bhag Chand. The Collector, Mandi Forest Division failed to give due credence to the fact that the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Second Grade, Sub Tehsil Aut on 12.03.2012 had been set aside by the Sub Divisional Collector Sadar, District Mandi on 24.07.2013. The order dated 12.03.2012 passed by the Assistant Collector Second Grade was set aside by the Sub Divisional Collector Sadar, District Mandi, for reasons and justifications recorded therein, more particularly on account of errors in the demarcation report dated 06.03.2012. The said aspect also takes care of the second ground given by the Divisional Commissioner in the impugned order dated 09.12.2025. The demarcation report dated 06.03.2012, placed on record as Annexure P-1, is not beyond 6 ( 2026:HHC:10263 ) doubt, as there is a difference of 15 biswansis of land. It is apparent from the last lines of the demarcation report, where at one place the encroachment is stated to be 0-4-5 bighas, whereas at another place it is stated to be 0-5-0 bighas. It is for these reasons that the Sub Divisional Collector Sadar, District Mandi had remanded the case to the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Aut, for a fresh decision. The above aspects have not factored in the impugned orders passed by the Collector, Mandi Forest Division on 17.08.2022 and by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi on 09.12.2025. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi is quashed and set-aside. The case is remanded to the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi for fresh decision in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. Parties through their learned counsel including the proforma respondents through petitioner, are directed to appear before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, on 04.05.2026. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 6th April, 2026(rohit)