SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners No.l and 3 to 9 have been issued separate notices dtd. 30/1/2021 by the Forest Guard, I/C Satobari Beat, Dharamshala Forest Division. The notices direct the petitioners to remove their construction raised over the forest land, failing which legal action was to be initiated against them. But for the difference in area and nature of the construction, the separate notices issued to the petitioners have following common contents:-

(2.) Assailing these notices, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that the Forest Guard had no authority to issue the impugned notices. A Forest Guard is not authorized under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (in short 'Act') to issue eviction notices. The Authorized Officer in terms of Sec. 4 of the Act is the Collector. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as per Sec. 4 of the Act, in case the Collector is of the opinion that any person is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises situated within his jurisdiction and is liable to be evicted, then, he is required to issue a notice in writing, calling upon such person to show cause as to why the order of eviction should not be made. Thereafter, further procedure is provided under the Act for proceeding in the matter. In the instant case, show cause notices have not been issued to the petitioners. Notice issued by the Forest Guard is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act.

(3.) Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the impugned notices have been issued to the petitioners only by way of warning and to give them achance to remove and dismantle on their own the unauthorized structures raised by them over the forest land, failing which legal action was to be taken against them in accordance with law. The reply filed by the respondents is also to the effect that "Therefore, the proceedings under HP Public Premises Act are going to be initiated against the petitioners". Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6, inviting attention to a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 19/7/2021 in CWP No. 3821 of 2021, titled Harnam Singh alias Rinku Chandel Versus State of H.P. & Ors., stated that the encroachments have been made by the petitioners alongside National Highway and, therefore, they are liable to be proceeded against in terms of the directions given in the aforesaid judgment.