Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/4458/2019 on 30 December 2019
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.4458 of 2019 Decided on: 30.12.2019. ________________________________________________________ Sh. Kamal Jeet & Another
…..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Others …..Respondents ________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners. : Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Ms. Ritta Goswami and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocates General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.(oral) Petitioner has come against the order dated 31.10.2019, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Collector, Sadar, District Bilaspur, directing the petitioners to remove the illegal construction raised by them over the land in question and to hand over the vacant possession of the same to the State.
2. It is seen from the record that father of the petitioner Shri Devi Ram being Bhakra Dam Oustee was allotted plot No.24 in Roura Sector No.2 in New Bilaspur Township. As per field agencies’ report the petitioner and his father made encroachment over the Govt. land comprised in Khasra No. 72/2, 74 Kitta-2, area measuring 240-25 Square Meters situated in Up-Muhal Kosrian by way of construction of house, courtyard etc. The State Government had framed regularization policy in respect of specified encroachments made by Shri Devi Ram, Bhakhra Dam 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Oustees in New Bilaspur Township on 28.10.2013, as modified on 28.07.2018. Shri Devi Ram, father of the petitioner applied for regularization of above described land encroached by him under the said policy. Respondent- Authority considered the case and found that encroached land was not contiguous to the plot allotted to the petitioners and their case did not fall under para 6(ii) of the regularization policy. Accordingly, the case for regularization of the land encroached by the petitioners was rejected vide order dated 18.10.2019 by the Additional District Magistrate, District Bilaspur. For implementing this order, impugned notice dated 31.10.2019/16.12.2019 has been issued.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed without hearing the petitioners. These submissions have been made only to be rejected. Petitioners had themselves moved application under the regularization policy for regularization of the land encroached by them. The concerned Authorities were required to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of regularization policy dated 28.10.2013, as modified on 28.07.2018. No opportunity of personal hearing was required to be granted to the petitioners as the authorities were only to see whether the case could be regularized within the ambit of policy or not. Another ground raised by the petitioners is that they are ready and willing to exchange their owned land in lieu of the encroached land in favour of the State. We are afraid that this contention also merits rejection as no provision has been brought to our notice which permits such exchange of land under the regularization policy issued by the State in lieu of the encroachment made by Bhakra Dam Oustees.
4. There is no infirmity in the impugned orders. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have become owner of the land in question by way of adverse possession. It is seen from the record that petitioners have themselves admitted their status as encroachers over the land in question and accordingly applied for the regularization of same under the regularization policy of the State. In any case, claim of adverse possession is based upon disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone into in this writ petition. It is open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievances on such disputed questions of facts. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (L. Narayana Swamy)
Chief Justice
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua)
Judge 30th December, 2019 (reena)