Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Neeta Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 27 February, 2025
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
1
ITEM NO.17 + 18 + 23 COURT NO.12 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 45933/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-09-2024
in CWP No. 207/2018 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at
Shimla]
NEETA RAM Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 262851/2024 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE
DEFECTS, IA No. 262852/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
WITH
Diary No(s). 45931/2024 (XIV)
FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.261561/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
O.T. and IA No.261560/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING /
CURING THE DEFECTS
Diary No(s). 45934/2024 (XIV)
SLP(C) No. 26737/2024 (XIV)
FOR ADMISSION
SLP(C) No. 27702/2024 (XIV)
FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.268234/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
O.T.
SLP(C) No. 28289/2024 (XIV)
FOR ADMISSION and IA No.274201/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Diary No(s). 58117/2024 (XIV)
FOR ADMISSION
IA No. 27865/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE
DEFECTS, IA No. 27866/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
with
SLP (C) Nos. 27695-27697/2024
IA No. 268151/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
Signature Not Verified
JUDGMENT
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.03.04
IA No. 268153/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
18:12:49 IST
Reason:
WITH
Diary No(s). 49527/2024 (XIV)
2
FOR PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..) ON IA 267612/2024
FOR APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION ON IA 267613/2024
FOR SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT ON IA 267615/2024
FOR APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION
FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ABATEMENT ON IA 267616/2024
IA No. 267616/2024 – APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
THE APPLICATION FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ABATEMENT
IA No. 267613/2024 – APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION
IA No. 267612/2024 – PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..)
IA No. 267615/2024 – SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT
SLP(C) No. 28350-28351/2024 (XIV)
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 275027/2024
IA No. 275027/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Diary No(s). 50426/2024 (XIV)
IA No.288619/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No.288621/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA
No.288618/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE
DEFECTS
SLP(C) No. 26826-26827/2024 (XIV)
IA FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA
259968/2024
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 259970/2024
IA No. 259968/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 259970/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
SLP(C) No. 28788-28789/2024 (XIV)
IA FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA
277510/2024
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 277511/2024
IA No. 277510/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 277511/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
SLP(C) No. 28482-28483/2024 (XIV)
IA FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA
276291/2024
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 276294/2024
IA No. 276291/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 276294/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
SLP(C) No. 27515/2024 (XIV)
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 266062/2024
FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA
266066/2024
IA No. 266062/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 266066/2024 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
3
SLP(C) No. 27808/2024 (XIV)
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 269809/2024
IA No. 269809/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
SLP(C) No. 28817/2024 (XIV)
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 278204/2024
IA No. 278204/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
SLP(C) No. 28010/2024 (XIV)
FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA
270635/2024
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 270636/2024
FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA
275327/2024
FOR APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS ON IA 275328/2024
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 275329/2024
IA No. 275328/2024 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 270636/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 275329/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 270635/2024 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 275327/2024 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
Diary No(s). 51830/2024 (XIV)
IA FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 268391/2024
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 268392/2024
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA
268393/2024
IA No. 268391/2024 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 268393/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 268392/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
SLP(C) No. 28157/2024 (XIV)
FOR ADMISSION
SLP(C) No. 27745/2024 (XIV)
FOR ADMISSION and I.R.
SLP(C) No. 28960/2024 (XIV)
FOR ADMISSION
SLP(C) No. 28952/2024 (XIV)
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 279346/2024
IA No. 279346/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
SLP(C) No. 28504/2024 (XIV)
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 276390/2024
IA No. 276390/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
SLP(C) No. 28984/2024 (XIV)
[FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 279661/2024
4
IA No. 279661/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
SLP(C) No. 28469/2024 (XIV)
FOR ADMISSION and I.R.
SLP(C) No. 28942/2024 (XIV)
FOR ADMISSION
SLP(C) No. 29165/2024 (XIV)
FOR
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 281894/2024
IA No. 281894/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Diary No(s). 55382/2024 (XIV)
IA FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 279214/2024
IA No. 279214/2024 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
SLP(C) No. 1693/2025 (XIV)
Diary No(s). 58477/2024 (XIV)
IA No.293561/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA
No.293563/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
SLP(C) No. 2117/2025 (XIV)
FOR ADMISSION
IA No. 20040/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Diary No(s). 59194/2024 (XIV)
IA No. 16779/2025 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 16780/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
with
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION Diary No(s). 4374/2025 in SLP(C) No.
27238/2024
IA No. 21893/2025 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 46209/2025 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
Date : 27-02-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Counsel for the
parties Mr. Naresh Kumar Tomar, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Joginder Mann, Adv.
Mr. Sanotsh Kumar Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Singh, AOR
Mr. Nishant Anand, Adv.
5
Mr. Mool Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, AOR
Mr. Naresh Kumar Tomar, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Parminder Singh Bhullar, AOR
Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.
Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Archita Nigam, Adv.
Ms. Khushboo Hora, Adv.
Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR
Mr. Hem Chand Vashisht, Adv.
Mr. Alok Vajpayee, AOR
Mrs. Apurva Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. E. C. Vidya Sagar, AOR
Mr. Vinayak Mohan, Adv.
Mr. Hem Chand Vashist, Adv.
Mr. Arjev Jain, Adv.
Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, AOR
Ms. Parul Sharma, AOR
Mr. Amol Chitravanshi, AOR
Mr. Shivam Prashar, Adv.
Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR
M/S. Brajesh Pandey & Associates, AOR
Mrs. Madhurika Sekhon, Adv.
Ms. Brajesh Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Hemant Kumar Niranjan, Adv.
Mr. Ms. Poonam Seth, Adv.
Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Shaik Shareeb, Adv.
Mr. Pulimamidi Shashidhar Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Chalasani Venkat, Adv.
Mr. Bhoumik Nayyar, Adv.
Mr. M. Chandrakanth Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR
Mr. Naresh Kumar Tomar, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Parminder Singh Bhullar, AOR
6
Ms. Jubli Momalia, Adv.
Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
In a matter relating to encroachment of forest land, some of
the petitioners had approached this Court by means of Special Leave
Petitions, challenging the order of the High Court, which has
upheld the order passed by the Divisional Collector ordering their
eviction from the forest land.
Vide order dated 28.11.2024, this Court* of which one of us
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) was a member had dismissed a Special Leave
Petition, being SLP (C) No. 27238/2024 [Guman Singh Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh & Ors.]. The order dated 28.11.2024 is reproduced
as under :-
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The
petitioner had been found to have encroached the
forest land and consequently an order has been
passed by the Forest Authorities for evicting
the petitioner from the said forest land. This
order was challenged by the petitioner before
the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional
Commissioner passed an order on 30.11.2023
dismissing petitioner’s appeal. The same was
challenged by the petitioner before the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh by filing a writ
petition, which was dismissed on 03.10.2024 and
the High Court came to a finding that the
demarcation conducted by the Forest Kanungo has
never been challenged by the petitioner and as
per that demarcation, the land on which the
_________________
*
(Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
7petitioner has encroached, is a part of the
reserved forest area. The petitioner has not
been
able to give any valid proof about his
ownership or possession on the said land. Under
these circumstances, we find absolutely no
ground to interfere with the well considered
order of the High Court, in exercise of our
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. The present petition is,
accordingly, dismissed along with pending
application(s), if any.”All the same, while dismissing the above petition, what was
not brought to the notice of this Court the earlier orders which
had been passed by a different Coordinate Bench of this Court
regarding the same issue. Reference is made to a similar matter,
being SLP (C) No. 19370/2024 [Tek Singh Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh], where a Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the said
petition. Order dated 30.08.2024 is reproduced as under :-
“We are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned judgment which relates to forest land
and, hence, the special leave petition is
dismissed. However, at the request of the
learned counsel for the petitioner, time for
vacating the premises in question is extended
till 15.10.2024, subject to the petitioner,
Tek Singh, filing an undertaking in this Court
that he will vacate the land on or before the
said date.
In case of any violation of the aforesaid
condition, the respondent, State of Himachal
8Pradesh, may file a contempt petition before
the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.”Thereafter, in SLP (C) No. 22556/2024 [Krishna Devi Vs. State
of Himachal Pradesh], vide order dated 27.09.2024, the dismissal
order passed in SLP (C) No. 19370/2024 [Tek Singh Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh] was recalled and the petition was restored to its
original number along with one another petition, being SLP (C)
Diary No. 39048/2024 [Shiv Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh &
Anr.]. Order dated 27.09.2024 is reproduced as under :-
“Our attention is drawn to the orders
passed by coordinate Benches of this
Court, issuing notice. However, we had
dismissed similar matters, vide two
separate Records of Proceedings dated
30.08.2024 in SLP(C) No. 19370/2024,
titled “Tek Singh v. The State of Himachal
Pradesh”, and SLP(C) Diary No. 39048/2024,
titled “Shiv Lal v. State of Himachal
Pradesh & Anr.” SLP(C) No. 22556/2024 In
view of the orders shown to us, we issue
notice in the present special leave
petition and tag it with SLP(C) No.
19946/2024, titled “Babu Ram v. State of
Himachal Pradesh & Anr.” and connected
matters. SLP(C) No. 19370/2024 and SLP(C)
Diary No. 39048/2024 shall be restored to
their original position. Notice will be
issued in both the said special leave
petitions, subject to curing of defects,
if any. Notices will be served by all
9modes, including dasti. List the present
special leave petition, SLP(C) No.
19370/2024, SLP(C) Diary No. 39048/2024
and SLP(C) No. 19946/2024 and other
connected matters on 14.11.2024 before one
Bench. If required, necessary orders in
this regard from the Hon’ble the Chief
Justice may be obtained.”We were unaware that similar matters were being considered by
another Bench in appeals [Civil Appeal No. 13362/2024 – Babu Ram
Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh], which, after hearing both the
sides, allowed the appeals vide order dated 28.11.2024, on the
ground that prior to the eviction, the appellants were not given
proper hearing and there was no demarcation, and the order of the
authorities were not speaking orders.
“…………………………………………
13. The order of the Divisional
Commissioner being the Appellate Authority
who was approached by Babu Ram while
laying a challenge to the order dated 7th
November, 2015 of the Collector, fares no
better. The Divisional Commissioner in the
penultimate paragraph of his order dated
08th September, 2016 recorded that the
Collector by a “speaking order” had
directed eviction of unauthorized
occupants. There can be no two opinions
that the Divisional Commissioner too
failed to apply his mind.
14. Having regard to what we have observed
above, the order of the Collector falls
10totally short of a being a “speaking
order” and this finding of the
Commissioner is clearly indefensible.
15. We are a little surprised that these
infirmities in the original order of
eviction as well as the appellate order
went unnoticed by the High Court, which
proceeded to dismiss the writ petition of
Babu Ram. Reasonable and adequate
opportunity of defence not having been
extended, we have not the slightest
hesitation to set aside the original order
of eviction, the appellate order and the
order of the High Court dismissing the
writ petition. Ordered accordingly.
16. Since all the other appellants stand
on similar footing as Babu Ram, they are
also entitled to similar relief. The
orders impugned in their civil appeals
also stand set aside.
17. However, it cannot be gainsaid that a
citizen has no right to encroach public
land. If indeed any citizen has encroached
public land and such encroachment is not
otherwise entitled to be regularized under
any law, a citizen has no right to sit on
public land. In such a case, the minimum
safeguard that is required of the State
while ordering eviction of an alleged
unauthorized occupant is to follow a fair
procedure which would, inter alia, include
a proper exercise conducted for
11demarcation of the land in the presence of
the party who is likely to be affected if
an order of eviction were passed, a proper
show cause notice under section 4 of the
1971 Act indicating the ground(s) on which
action is proposed, which must be served
together with any document that the State
desires to rely on during the course of
the eviction proceedings, a just and
proper consideration of the response of
the noticee to the show cause notice,
sufficient opportunity to lead evidence,
and application of mind to all the
materials on record leading to an order of
eviction, if at all, it is required to be
passed. If an appeal is preferred, it is
needless to observe that the provisions of
the 1971 Act governing disposal of such
appeals also need to be adhered to
strictly apart from natural justice
principles.
18. In the light of the above, we direct
and order that the respondent-State,
through its appropriate department, will
undertake an appropriate exercise for
demarcation of forest land upon written
notice to Babu Ram. It would be desirable
if such an exercise is completed as early
as possible, preferably within two months
from date. Similar such exercise shall be
conducted in respect of the other
appellants who are also alleged to be in
occupation of forest land, unauthorizedly.
12
19. If the event of any of the appellants,
despite being served written notice,
abstaining from attending the proceedings,
the exercise of demarcation shall proceed
ex-parte against him. The report of
demarcation shall be served on each of the
alleged unauthorised occupants of forest
land, if the respondent State proposes to
proceed against them under Section 4 of
the 1971 Act. The noticees shall be
granted a fortnight’s time to respond
whereafter, the Collector shall take the
proceedings to its logical conclusion in
consonance with law as well as in the
manner observed in this judgment within
such further time as may be found
necessary and reasonable by him.
20. If an order of eviction is passed, the
same must be a speaking order. The
unauthorized occupant(s) in such case
shall be at liberty to work out his/their
remedy(s) in accordance with the other
provisions of the 1971 Act.
21. Since the appellants were dispossessed
of their structures prior to filing of the
special leave petitions giving rise to
these civil appeals, status-quo ante as
prevailing on the date the writ petitions
were instituted before the High Court
shall be restored which shall, however, be
subject to and abide by further orders
that might be passed in freshly initiated
eviction proceedings.
13
22. All contentions on merit are kept open
for being urged before the appropriate
authority.
23. The civil appeals preferred by Babu
Ram and the other appellants stand
disposed of on the above said terms.”We have already stated in the beginning of this order, that
another Bench of which one of us (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) was a
member has already dismissed a similar petition on the same day
when the above petitions were being allowed i.e. on 28.11.2024.
Today, another bunch of petitions are before us. Since there
are different views passed by different coordinate benches on the
same day, i.e. 28.11.2024, on the same issue, it is our considered
opinion that the matter be placed before Hon’ble The Chief Justice
of India for constituting a larger Bench to decide the issue, if
that be the appropriate course.
The parties are thus directed to maintain status quo, as it
exists today, until further orders.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
[ad_1]
Source link