Himachal HC quashes Section 163-A of state's Land Revenue Act
A division bench of the High Court consisting of Justice Vivek Thakur and Justice Bipin Chander Negi ruled that the 'Section 163-A of HP Land Revenue Act is manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional and as a consequence the section and the rules framed there under the said section are quashed'.
Shimla, Aug 5 (PTI) In a major setback to encroachers on government lands, the Himachal Pradesh High Court on Tuesday struck down the section 163-A of Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act 1954, allowing regularisation of encroachments on government lands, terming the section as unconstitutional.
The dimensions of the encroachments can be measured from the reply of the government which said that there were approximately 57,549 cases of encroachment covering an area of about 1,23,835 bighas of government land.
The encroached government land is about 10,320 hectares and in terms of the rules framed under the impugned provision, 1,67,339 applications were received for regularisation up to August 15, 2002 and taking into account the magnitude of encroachments, the high court directed the state government to consider an amendment in the law pertaining to 'criminal trespass'.
The high court clearly stated that any stay granted against removal of encroachment shall stand vacated and also directed the government to make suitable changes in law by amending the relevant Act and rules appropriately to assign duty on the office bearers of Nagar Panchayat, Nagar Parishad and Nagar Nigam as well as executive officer(s)/commissioner(s) concerned to report the encroachment for taking action to remove of encroachment.
The HC also instructed the advocate general to transmit the copy of the judgment to the chief secretary of the sate government and all concerned with immediate compliance.
Since 1983, successive governments issued various notifications for regularisation of encroachments and the July 4, 1983 notification permitted regularisation up to five bighas on a nominal fee of Rs 50 per bigha.
Section 163-A was introduced in 2002 during the first tenure of the then chief minister Prem Kumar Dhumal to frame rules for regularising encroachments, with the stated objective of helping small and marginal farmers.
However, the High Court on Tuesday ruled that the provision was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before law and attempted to legitimise illegal acts.
'The impugned provision is in fact legislation for a class of dishonest persons and equality cannot be claimed in illegality,' the judgment said. PTI BPL MNK MNK MNK
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC stray dog order spotlights poor pet registration in Delhi
The Supreme Court's recent directive to relocate stray dogs in Delhi-NCR has put the spotlight on another long-standing problem — the capital's dismal pet dog registration rate. Despite it being mandatory under Section 399 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (MCD) Act, only 5,767 pet dogs are registered in the city, with 381 applications pending, according to MCD data. The Supreme Court ruling on Monday had outright rejected the idea of stray dogs being adopted. It focused solely on relocation of community dogs and made no specific directive on pet dog registration. (AFP/Representational image) Officials warn that this gap leaves a dangerous grey area between pets and strays, opening the door to disputes and misuse of the complaint system. 'Registration and the token serve as proof of ownership. With the recent SC judgment, we expect a surge in applications, especially for adopted indigenous breeds,' said a senior MCD official. Non-registration can attract fines and prosecution under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita dealing with negligent behaviour with respect to animals. The Act also allows detention of unregistered dogs found in public places, a step veterinary officials say is rarely enforced. Experts warn that poor compliance risks deepening confusion and triggering disputes. Gauri Maulekhi, activist and trustee at People for Animals (PFA), said the lack of registration creates a grey area between pets and community dogs. 'Some people collar strays, keep them indoors for long periods, or adopt indies as full-fledged pets. If neither strays nor pets are tagged, it's bound to cause confusion,' she said, adding that this could even pit neighbours against each other. 'A neighbour might report my dog as a stray, or conversely, collar a stray and claim it's a long-time pet.' The Supreme Court ruling on Monday had outright rejected the idea of stray dogs being adopted. It focused solely on relocation of community dogs and made no specific directive on pet dog registration. Asher Jesudoss, whose 2022 plea in the Delhi high court led to the creation of the Delhi Animal Welfare Board, said that since very few dogs are registered in Delhi, one can find it difficult to differentiate between pets and strays. 'As the name suggests, community dogs are those that belong to the entire community. But nothing stops an individual from collaring the stray and taking it indoors and keeping it as a pet. As per our rules, all breeds and dogs need to be registered. MCD needs to register all pets as proving ownership otherwise becomes tricky,' he said. Pet registration can be done online, with a uniform ₹500 fee. A veterinary official said actual registrations are far below the real number of pets. 'We issue a brass token for the dog's collar, which also lets us track vaccination status,' the official added.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Delhi Confidential: Rhyme For A Reason
Union MoS Ramdas Athawale is never short of couplets on any occasion. At an event on Monday to felicitate him on his re-election as president of RPI (Athawale), the leader used his famous poetic touch to remind his supporters that the Constitution is supreme. 'Waqt aayega to de dunga meri jaan, lekin mere Babasaheb ka nahi badalne dunga samvidhaan,' recited Athawale in his characteristic flourish to the applause from his supporters. Interestingly, the event was held at the Aiwan-e-Ghalib auditorium in central Delhi, named after one of the greatest Urdu poets. There was much enthusiasm about the Constitution Club election in the Capital on Tuesday. While some leaders like former BJP MP and ex-CM of Jharkhand Babulal Marandi, current Jharkhand Governor and BJP leader Santosh Gangwar flew to Delhi just to vote, those attending Parliament proceedings used the breaks in between sessions to cast their vote in the high-profile elections. When former BJP MP from Delhi Ramesh Bidhuri rushed into the club to cast his vote, former Union minister Sanjeev Balyan — who is contesting for the post of Secretary (Administration) against party MP Rajiv Pratap Singh Rudy — reminded him with a smile, 'Paanch minute reh gaye bhai, gadbad ho jaati. Pehle vote daal aa. Phir hum baat karenge (Just five minutes remain, things could have gone wrong. First go and vote, then we will talk).' After a warm embrace, Bidhuri hurried into the room to cast his vote. The result of the election will be declared early Wednesday.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Convict given fixed life for 20 yrs entitled to be freed after term: Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Tuesday held that a convict sentenced to life imprisonment for a fixed term like 20 years is entitled to be released from jail after completing the term and there was no need for him to seek remission of sentence to be free, which is needed in case of simple life imprisonment. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan rejected a petition that a convict, even if serving a fixed term, could come out of jail only when his plea for remission of sentence was allowed by govt. The court, which had on July 29 directed release of Sukhdev Pehalwan in the Nitish Katara case, as he had already completed 20 years imprisonment in March, passed a reasoned judgment in the case. "We hold that in all cases where an accused/convict has completed his period of jail term, he shall be entitled to be released forthwith and not continued in imprisonment if not wanted in any other case. We say so in light of Article 21 of the Constitution, which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law," the bench said Taking note that many convicts have completed their sentences and are languishing in jail,it directed the order's copy be circulated by SC registry to all home secretaries to ascertain whether any accused/convict has remained in jail beyond the period of sentence.
