Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Encroachment Regularisation Law Unconstitutional

Section 163-A of HP Land Revenue Act Struck Down

In a landmark decision, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has declared Section 163-A of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act as unconstitutional, citing it as violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. This section, introduced in 2002, aimed to regularise encroachments on government and forest lands across the state.

The ruling was issued in a Civil Writ Petition that had been pending for over two decades and was reserved for judgment since May 2025. The bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bipin Chander Negi held that the provision was arbitrary, discriminatory, and ultra vires the Constitution.

Court’s Observation on Equality and Illegality

The division bench delivered a strongly worded opinion, stating that:

“Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Equality cannot be claimed in illegality.”

The court held that legislation intended to regularise illegal land occupation undermines the principle of rule of law, placing encroachers at par with law-abiding citizens and thereby eroding public trust.

Directive for Complete Eviction and Land Protection

The High Court ordered the Himachal Pradesh Government to remove all encroachments from government and forest lands by February 28, 2026. The following steps have been mandated:

• Cleared land must be fenced with barbed wire, with cost recovered from encroachers.

• Land is to be reforested using native species.

• Profits earned from illegal use, particularly from apple orchards, must be recovered from the encroachers.

• Wherever feasible, fruit from illegal orchards should be auctioned by the government.

Accountability of Government Officials

The judgment holds government officials accountable for failing to report or act on encroachments. The following measures were ordered:

• Suspension and disciplinary action against erring revenue and forest officials.

• Monthly reports to be filed by patwaris, forest guards, and work inspectors.

• Departmental proceedings against those failing to submit reports.

The court invoked the Public Trust Doctrine, reaffirming that public land is held by the state in trust for its people, and attempts to privatise it through laws or policy are contrary to constitutional obligations.

Criticism of Past Regularisation Policies

The judgment condemned earlier policies (particularly those between 1983 and 1994) that sought to legitimise encroachments, stating they encouraged illegal occupation. The court directed that the original Section 163—which deals with eviction of illegal occupants—must be strictly enforced moving forward.

Government Response and Legal Impact

Advocate General Anup Kumar Rattan, representing the Himachal government, clarified that the 2002 amendment was aimed at benefiting small and marginal farmers, providing them with additional land and ensuring revenue generation. However, with over 1,67,339 regularisation applications received under this policy, the High Court’s ruling now renders all such applications invalid.

Rattan confirmed that a copy of the judgment has been sent to the Chief Secretary, and further actions will be determined after internal government deliberations.

Supreme Court Intervention on Apple Orchard Felling

Following the High Court’s earlier orders, the Forest Department began removing illegal apple orchards from forest land. However, the operation was halted after the Supreme Court intervened on a petition filed by Tikender Singh Panwar, former Deputy Mayor of Shimla and environmental activist.

The apex court allowed eviction but stayed the felling of fruit-bearing trees, stating:

“Eviction does not necessitate ecological destruction.”

This stay introduces ecological sensitivity to the eviction process, ensuring that forest restoration is not achieved at the cost of environmental damage.

Scale of Encroachment and Legal Precedents

The Himachal government has stated that over 57,500 encroachment cases are pending, involving more than 10,000 hectares of public land—primarily in tribal and upper hill areas where apple cultivation is a major source of livelihood.

The current judgment also reinforces earlier rulings such as:

• Raj Kumar Singla vs. State of HP (1997)

• Jagpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2011)

• State of Haryana vs. Mukesh Kumar (2011)

• Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs. Manjit Kaur (2019)

The court invoked Article 48A (state duty to protect the environment) and Article 51A(g) (citizens’ duty to protect forests and wildlife) to emphasize environmental and constitutional obligations.

A Balancing Act Between Enforcement and Ecology

While the High Court calls for uncompromising enforcement against illegal encroachments, the Supreme Court’s ecological caution has led to a more balanced and sustainable approach. The Himachal government now faces a complex challenge of aligning land restoration with ecological preservation and social sensitivities.

The matter is expected to return to the Supreme Court for further hearing in the coming weeks.

---

Conclusion: A Landmark Judgment with National Implications

The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision to strike down Section 163-A marks a turning point in the legal approach to land encroachment. By invoking constitutional values and ecological principles, the court has sent a strong message against the institutionalisation of illegality.

This judgment is likely to become a template for land governance and environmental jurisprudence across other Indian states, especially where forest land encroachments and political regularisation attempts are prevalent.

---