Himachal HC declares regularisation of encroachments unconstitutional
'Section 163-A of HP Land Revenue Act is manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional and as a consequence, rules framed thereunder are quashed,' the division bench of justice Vivek Singh Thakur and justice Bipin Chander Negi ruled, disposing of a petition filed in 2002.
In its order, the Bench observed that the impugned provision is a 'legislation for a class of dishonest persons' which seeks to regularise all illegal encroachments, and thus, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
It also directed the state to initiate eviction proceedings against all such encroachments and take such proceedings to its logical end as expeditiously as possible preferably on or before February 28, 2026.
The extent of the problem can be gauged by the state's reply to the court in which it said there are 57,549 cases of encroachments on government land, covering about 10,320 hectares. Besides, the state has 1,67,339 applications seeking regularisation till August 15, 2002.
Taking into account the magnitude of encroachments on government land, the high court directed the state government to consider an amendment in the law pertaining to 'criminal trespass'.
Since July 4, 1983, the Himachal Pradesh government has issued various notifications, allowing regularisation of encroachments on government land. The policy at that time permitted regularisation of up to five bighas at a nominal fee of ₹50 a bigha, for 5-10 bighas, a penalty of three times the market value was imposed, and for 10–20 bighas, a fine of 10 times the market value applied. Encroachments exceeding 20 bighas were subject to eviction. These guidelines were modified in 1984 and again in 1987, with the last setting August 30, 1982, as the cut-off date for regularisation of encroachments made since June 30, 1970.
Section 163-A was introduced in 2002 during the first tenure of chief minister Prem Kumar Dhumal. It enabled the government to frame rules for regularising encroachments with the stated aim of helping small and marginal farmers. But the high court on Tuesday ruled that the provision violated 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. Equality cannot be claimed in illegality,' the bench stated in its judgment.
The high court clarified that any stay granted against the removal of encroachment shall stand vacated. The state also directed to make suitable changes in the law by amending the relevant Act and rules appropriately to assign the duty on office-bearers of the concerned nagar panchayat, nagar parishad and nagar nigam as well as executive officer(s)/commissioner(s) to report the encroachment, to take action for its removal and regarding consequences of violation of such duty.
The high court directed the advocate general to transmit the copy of the judgment to the state chief secretary and all concerned for immediate compliance, with directions to take appropriate action against the revenue authorities in whose jurisdiction land has been permitted to be encroached upon.
The order comes close on heels of the directives of the high court on July 2 to cut down apple trees planted on forest land.
The Himachal Pradesh government had begun acting on this directive, but former Shimla deputy mayor and environmentalist Tikender Singh Panwar filed a petition in the Supreme Court, requesting a stay on the felling of the trees. The Supreme Court has granted a stay in the matter and directed the state government that while illegal encroachments may be removed, cutting down green trees is prohibited.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
15 minutes ago
- Hans India
Constitution Club: A place for lawmakers, ex-MPs to rewind, rejuvenate
New Delhi: BJP leader Rajiv Pratap Rudy won the keenly fought election to a key post at the Constitution Club of India, which has over the decades emerged as a meeting place for current and former members of Parliament. Barely a few hundred metres from Parliament, the Constitution Club of India (CCI) has served as a place for MPs to rejuvenate after a hard day's work at the gymnasium or with a few quick laps in the swimming pool. The history of the CCI is as old as that of independent India. It was established in 1947 as a place for members of the Constituent Assembly, tasked with drafting the Constitution, who had living quarters at the Constitution House on what was then called the Curzon Road. The original Constitution House is now home to the Civil Services Officers Institute on Kasturba Gandhi Road. In the days just after independence, the members of the Constituent Assembly stayed at the Constitution House and entertained their guests in the sprawling dining halls. Post-meal discussions and gossip spilled over to the green lawns of the complex. The present-day CCI was inaugurated in 1965 by the then president Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan and is registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Lok Sabha speaker is the ex-officio president of the CCI, the deputy chairman of the Rajya Sabha is the general secretary and the Union urban affairs minister is the vice president. The three secretaries in-charge of administration, sports, and culture, and the treasurer oversee the functioning of the CCI along with an 11-member Executive Committee. The CCI has two restaurants -- Article 21 for the general public and The Preamble for members of the Club. It also has a coffee house, health centre, spa, unisex salon, billiards room, a badminton court, leisure lounges and conference facilities on its premises. Over the years, the CCI has emerged as a popular venue for political meetings, art and craft exhibitions, functions, conferences and meetings. Rajiv Pratap Rudy maintained his 25-year-old dominance in the club management, retaining his position as secretary (administration) and prevailing over the challenge from fellow BJP leader Sanjeev Balyan. The election saw participation from marquee members, including BJP's Amit Shah and Congress' Sonia Gandhi. Earlier, Congress MP Rajiv Shukla was declared elected as secretary (sports) after BJP Rajya Sabha member Pradip Kumar Varma withdrew his candidature.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Nirmiti Kendras fall under RTI Act ambit, rules Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court ruled last week that Nirmiti Kendras, which were set up to develop construction skills and carry out state civil contracts, are subject to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The order was passed by a single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj on August 6. The bench also imposed an additional cost of Rs 50,000 on the Nirmiti Kendra in Chitradurga district, which had approached the high court against a State Information Commission order directing it to pay a cost of Rs 25,000 and submit certain documents sought by an RTI applicant in 2017. The petition argued that a Nirmiti Kendra is a private society, and this being the case, does not count as a 'public authority' under the RTI Act. Unless a body is a public authority, they are not bound to provide such information, the petition claimed. The opposing counsel argued that the Nirmiti Kendra was established to carry out the activities of the state, and the state government had substantial control and financed it, making it subject to the RTI Act. He also argued that even if it was an NGO, this would still apply as it was financed by the government. The bench observed that Nirmiti Kendras were established on the recommendation of the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, and government officers, including IAS and Karnataka Administrative Service officers, ran their daily operations. It also pointed out that the source of funding was the Housing and Urban Development Corporation, a public sector entity. This being the case, the court ruled, the Kendras were subject to the RTI Act. 'It is not expected of a governmental authority and the officers of the Nirmathi Kendra, who are government officers, to have taken such a stand that a Nirmathi Kendra would not come within the purview of the RTI Act,' the bench said. 'The attempt made by the officers of Nirmathi Kendra to suppress such transparency leaves much to be desired and does not inspire confidence. By way of such conduct, the petitioner Nirmathi Kendra has successfully avoided disclosure of information and details,' it added.
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
SC To Hear Pleas Seeking Restoration Of J&Ks Statehood Today
The Supreme Court will on Thursday take up a set of applications seeking the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir within a fixed timeframe. According to the causelist published on the apex court's website, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran will hear the matter on Thursday, a day ahead of Independence Day. Last week, CJI Gavai agreed to retain the petitions on the hearing board after they were mentioned by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan. One of the applications, filed by Zahoor Ahmed Bhat and activist Khurshaid Ahmad Malik, argued that the prolonged delay in restoring statehood is "gravely affecting the rights of the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and also violating the idea of federalism. " The applicants contended that the absence of a time-bound framework for restoration amounts to a breach of federalism, which is part of the Constitution's Basic Structure. In its landmark verdict on Article 370, a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud had left open the question of whether Parliament has the authority to extinguish statehood by converting a state into one or more Union Territories. The Bench relied on a statement by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assuring that statehood would be restored to Jammu and Kashmir. During the oral hearings, SG Mehta, the second-highest law officer of the Centre, had told the court that the Union Home Ministry could not provide an exact timeline, saying it would take "some time" to restore statehood. Nevertheless, the Constitution Bench which also included Justices S.K. Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant directed the Election Commission of India to hold Legislative Assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir under Section 14 of the Reorganisation Act by September 30, 2024, and stated that "restoration of statehood shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible. " The verdict also upheld Ladakh's status as a Union Territory under Article 3(a) read with Explanation I of the Constitution, which allows the creation of a Union Territory by separating a territory from a state. In May 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed review petitions challenging this ruling, finding "no error apparent on the face of the record" and declining to list the matter for an open court hearing.
