PYAR SINGH CHANDEL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is one of those cases which exhibits how process of law/Court can be used, misused, abused and hijacked to obtain undue personal gain at the cost of public at large. It shows how a litigant can indulge "forum hunting" to perpetuate illegitimate gains by practising fraud on the Courts.

(2.) The story starts in the year 1990 when the Respondent No. 4 Shakuntla Devi having encroached on Government land, moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur (Respondent No. 2) for regularization of the land comprised in Khasra Numbers 137/123/1 (new Khasra Numbers 184/137/123) measuring 0-9 bighas situate in village Bagh Theru in the District of Bilaspur, encroached by her. This land undoubtedly is a public path. She claimed in her application that she was in possession of this land prior to 1980 as the possession of the applicant was old, therefore, it should be regularized. Notwithstanding the objections of the Forest Department that the land was a "forest land" and the encroachment over this land could not be regularized in view of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the Deputy Commissioner, in utter disregard to the Encroachment Policy, regularized the encroachment saying that the land encroached by the applicant falls under the purview of the Encroachment Policy framed by the State Government. The Deputy Commissioner conveniently, for reasons other than merits, shut his eyes to the fact that the land in question being a public path "Gair Mumkin Sarak" could not be regularized even under the Encroachment Policy.

(3.) Mahila Mandal Bagh Theru, having come to know about the regularization of the encroached public path, moved Divisional Commissioner Mandi in appeal. The Divisional Commissioner set aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner observing that the encroachment of the land in question being "Share-am-gair Mumkin Sarak" could not be regularized. Dissatisfied, Shakuntala Devi Respondent No. 4 carried an appeal/revision before the Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh which too was decided on October 16, 1993. The Financial Commissioner observed that under the Encroachment Policy, the land in question could not have been regularized. He reproduced the relevant para regarding regularization of the encroached land: