Mere Use Of Encroached Forest Land Does Not Make Person Necessary Party In Eviction Proceedings Filed By Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh Excessive Courtroom has held that people who merely use a path or highway constructed on a forest shouldn’t have locus standi to problem an eviction order towards the encroachers.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua: “Petitioners weren’t crucial events to the lis earlier than the Collector Forest. They don’t have any locus standi for assailing the order handed by Collector Forest. Mere person of encroachment over the encroached/damaged forest land wouldn’t make an individual crucial get together within the eviction proceedings filed by proprietor of the land towards the culprits.”
Background Details:
In August 2022, the Collector, Forest Division Kullu, handed an eviction order towards the Block Improvement Officer, Naggar and the Gram Panchayat, Naogi, for illegally setting up a cemented highway on forest land in Kullu
Thereafter, the petitioners, Nishant Mahajan and one other, filed an software earlier than the collector forest underneath Order 9 Rule 13 to put aside the eviction order, claiming it was handed ex parte. Nevertheless, the applying was rejected and the petitioners then filed an attraction earlier than the Divisional Commissioner, which was dismissed for lack of locus standi.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of their attraction and the unique eviction order, the petitioners approached the Excessive Courtroom, claiming that the eviction order denied them entry to their property and violated their elementary rights.
Contentions:
The State contended that the dispute was between the Forest Division and the encroachers, the Gram Panchayat and the Block Improvement officer, who had unauthorizedly occupied forest land. The petitioners had no possession rights over the forest land, they usually couldn’t problem the eviction.
Findings:
The Excessive Courtroom held that the petitioners weren’t crucial events to the unique eviction proceedings as a result of they didn’t personal the forest land. It held that “Mere person of encroachment over the encroached/damaged forest land wouldn’t make an individual a crucial get together within the eviction proceedings filed by the proprietor of the land towards the culprits.”
The Courtroom noticed that the petitioners’ declare as mere customers of the highway was an easementary proper. So the plea, even when raised earlier than the collector, wouldn’t have impacted the choice of the case. The Collector Forest doesn’t have jurisdiction to determine on non-public easement claims.
The Courtroom famous that, in line with the information, the petitioner had beforehand challenged the identical eviction order underneath Article 227 of the Structure, which was dismissed. So, now they can’t problem the identical order once more underneath Article 226 of the Structure, as barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.
It additional recorded that the land was not owned by the petitioners and is a forest land owned by the State, lined with Deodar, Kail & Widespread bushes standing on it.
The Courtroom noticed that, in line with the demarcation report, it was evident that the petitioners had misled the Courtroom by projecting that the highway in query had been in existence from “instances immemorial” and was additionally being utilized by most of the people. The highway was not being utilized by most of the people, or for that matter, anybody else apart from the petitioners.
Thus, the Excessive Courtroom dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Nishant Mahajan & Anr. v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Case No.: CWP No. 8554 of 2024
Date of Resolution: 04.07.2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vipul Sharda & Mr. Abhinav M. Goel, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate Common with Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate Common, for respondents No. 1 to five.
Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.6
Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate, for the intervener/respondent No.7
