Supreme Court protects Dharamshala resident from Himachal HC verdict on encroachment regularization law

The Supreme Court recently asked the Union government and the State of Himachal Pradesh to respond to a petition challenging the High Court decision to declare Section 163(A) of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1952 as unconstitutional [Trilochan Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors].

The provision that allowed the State government to make rules for regularization of encroachments on government land was declared unconstitutional by Himachal Pradesh High Court on August 5. The decision has now been challenged before the top court.

On August 14, a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice to Centre, Himachal Pradesh government and private respondents.

The Court also granted interim relief to the petitioner, who was affected by High Court's August 5 directions for removal of encroachments on State land.

"Issue notice, returnable within four weeks. Until further orders, status quo, as it exists today, with regard to the suit property shall be maintained by the parties," the Court ordered.

The plea has been filed by one Trilochan Singh, a resident of Dharamshala, in relation to his house.

The High Court, after striking down Section 163A of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954, had directed the State government to ensure removal of all encroachments on government land.

Section 163A, introduced in May 2000, provided a one-time window for the regularisation of long-standing occupations on government land up to a cut-off date of August 15, 2002. Pursuant to this, nearly 1.67 lakh applications covering over 24,000 hectares were received, many of which remained pending due to interim judicial orders. The provision was challenged in 2002.

It has been contended before the top court that the High Court directions are arbitrary and unconstitutional, as they fail to distinguish between long-standing bona fide occupants and recent encroachers.

According to the petitioner, the judgment conflates a constitutional challenge to Section 163A with a general eviction drive, thereby adversely affecting thousands of villagers whose regularization applications under the 2002 scheme are still pending.

On facts, the petitioner argued that that he has been in peaceful and continuous possession of land in Dharamshala since 1992, with a residential house duly assessed for house tax and connected with water and electricity by government authorities prior to the cut-off date.

He had applied for regularisation under the 2002 Rules but the process remained incomplete due to interim orders by the High Court.

According to the plea, the High Court order intrudes into the legislative domain, violates Articles 14 and 21 by equating bona fide residents with recent trespassers, and disregards the doctrine of promissory estoppel, as the State itself had invited and accepted applications for regularisation.

Thus, the petitioner sought the setting aside of the August 5 High Court decsion and a stay on the operation and execution of the impugned judgment.

Additionally, he sought a direction restraining the State authorities from evicting or demolishing his residential structure pending adjudication of the plea.

Advocates Vinod Sharma and Gaurav Kumar appeared for the petitioner.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal and C George Thomas appeared for the respondents.

[Read Order]