2026:HHC:6226 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12908 of 2024 Decided on: 9th March, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amit Dogra …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal and Mr. Harshit Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge The Assistant Collector Second Grade passed an order for ejectment of the petitioner under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act from the land in question. This order was affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Collector on 29.12.2022 as also by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 21.08.2024. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has instituted this writ petition. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:6226 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. Following facts emerge from the record:- 3(i). Sh. Sohan Singh-father of the petitioner was recorded as owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra Nos.1278, 1411/1279 and 1412/1279, situated at Mohal Dasholi, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla. Khasra No.1277 situated in same Mohal was classified as ‘Gair Mumkin Rasta Shahre Aam’ and recorded in the ownership of the State of Himachal Pradesh in the jamabandi for the year 2007-08. 3(ii). Respondents issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act (in short ‘the Act’) on 10.02.2021, alleging that he had encroached over a portion of Khasra No.1277 denoted by Khasra No.1277/1, measuring 0-00-08 hectares (8 square meters). Petitioner filed reply to the notice on 30.04.2021, denying the allegations. He pleaded therein that the respondents had not carried out any demarcation of the land before preparing the encroachment report or issuing notice to him. Petitioner put forth his case that his father is owner of adjoining land; The boundary of the land owned by petitioner’s father and the disputed land is common and 3 2026:HHC:6226 contiguous, therefore, identification of land through demarcation was mandatory. 3(iii). Assistant Collector Second Grade concluded that the petitioner had encroached over Khasra No.1277/1 to the extent of 0-00-08 hectares. The land was in the ownership of the State Government and classified as ‘Rasta Shahre Aam’. The Assistant Collector Second Grade on 28.09.2021, ordered ejectment of the petitioner from the land in question. 3(iv). Petitioner agitated the aforesaid order by filing an appeal under Section 14 of the Act before the Sub- Divisional Collector. Petitioner reiterated his stand that there was no cogent or convincing evidence on record of the case that he had encroached upon the government land in question. That his father was owner of adjoining land. Petitioner/his father had constructed house on their own land; There was no encroachment over the government land comprised in Khasra No.1277/1. That there was no obstruction to the common path over the aforesaid area used by the general public. Petitioner reiterated his objection that demarcation had not been conducted by the respondents before preparing the encroachment report. The Sub-Divisional Collector dismissed petitioner’s appeal on 4 2026:HHC:6226 29.12.2022, primarily for the reason that proceedings under Section 163 of the Act had been instituted against the petitioner after preparation of Missal Kabza Najayaz by the concerned Patwari Halqa, which was duly verified by the concerned Kanungo. The Sub-Divisional Collector also observed that petitioner’s counsel had insisted about petitioner’s possession being open, hostile and continuous over the land. This argument, according to the Collector, was an admission on part of the petitioner that he had encroached over the State owned land and therefore, there was no confusion in identification of the boundaries of the encroached land. The Collector also observed that the petitioner had not produced any documentary proof to show that his father was owner of land with shared boundaries to the encroached land. 3(v). Petitioner now took recourse to Section 17 of the Act by filing revision petition against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Collector. The revision petition was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh on 21.08.2024, holding that Patwari’s report dated 03.11.2018, duly verified by the concerned Kanungo, made it apparent that the petitioner had encroached upon the public passage over Khasra 5 2026:HHC:6226 No.1277/1 by constructing a residential house. It was also observed that the land in dispute had been demarcated twice, firstly by the Patwari concerned while preparing tatima of the encroached land and secondly by the concerned Kanungo while verifying the said tatima. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) also held that in case the petitioner is owner of the adjoining land, it is for him to get his land demarcated. The aforesaid orders have given an occasion to the petitioner to file instant writ petition. 4. Consideration:- Having heard learned counsel on both sides and on considering the case file, I am of the considered view that the impugned orders do call for an interference. Right from the beginning, petitioner’s assertions have been that his father-Sh. Sohan Singh is the recorded owner in possession of three kasra numbers 1278, 1411/1279 and 1412/1279, which adjoin the State owned Khasra No.1277. That the petitioner/his father have not raised any construction over Khasra No.1277. That passage over Khasra No.1277 is available to the general public. Petitioner’s grievance had been that the respondents had prepared the encroachment report without conducting 6 2026:HHC:6226 demarcation of the site. These factual assertions have been brushed aside by the Assistant Collector Second Grade as also by the Sub-Divisional Collector. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) has returned the finding that the land in dispute has been twice demarcated, first by the concerned Patwari while preparing tatima of the encroached land and second time by the concerned Kanungo while verifying the aforesaid tatima on spot. Preparation of tatima is quite different from demarcating the land. None of the authorities below have returned any positive finding about demarcation of the disputed land having been conducted by the concerned revenue officials. The petitioner has placed on record statement of Sh. Baldev, concerned Patwari, who while appearing as PW-2 before the Assistant Collector Second Grade, admitted the suggestion that he had prepared the unauthorized possession/encroachment report only on the basis of a complaint. That he had not conducted any demarcation before preparing the encroachment report. He has also admitted that petitioner’s father-Sh. Sohan Singh is the owner of land adjoining to the disputed land. He also stated that he had not recorded the statement of any of the persons present on spot while preparing the tatima. That he 7 2026:HHC:6226 had prepared the tatima on the basis of Aks Shajra. He also admitted the suggestion that he had not prepared the tatima on spot. All these aspects have not been taken into consideration by the revenue authorities while ordering ejectment of the petitioner from the land in question. The procedure required to be followed in accordance with law while dealing with the cases under Section 163 of the Act has apparently not been adhered to. Statements of witnesses have not been considered. The defence of the petitioner has not been appreciated. His stand appears to have been vindicated by the evidence on record. All these factors have not been deliberated upon in the impugned orders. All this leave no room for doubt, but to hold that the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities below have neither considered the defence of the petitioner nor the evidence on record nor the legal position, in ordering petitioner’s ejectment. 5. In view of above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, orders dated 28.09.2021 passed by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, 29.12.2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Collector and 21.08.2024 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh are quashed and set aside. In the given facts and 8 2026:HHC:6226 circumstances, liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed afresh in the matter in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 09, 2026 Judge Mukesh