Himachal HC’s no to regularise 5-bigha encroachments, sets new deadline for govt, makes stance clear on stay orders too

TNR News Network
Shimla:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has struck down the controversial provision that allowed regularisation of encroachments on government land up to five bighas.

A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice BC Negi declared Section 163-A of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act unconstitutional and directed the state government to clear all encroachments by February 28, 2026.

With this verdict, the high court has dismantled the legal basis that had, since 2002-03, allowed over 1.67 lakh people to apply for legal ownership of encroached government land, a policy originally introduced during the BJP government’s tenure under then Chief Minister Prem Kumar Dhumal.

Over 1.23 lakh bighas under encroachment

According to data presented before the high court, 57,549 encroachment cases are currently registered across Himachal Pradesh, involving more than 1.23 lakh bighas of government land. The high court stated that these encroachments could not be allowed to continue under any regularisation scheme.

The high court also made it clear that no interim protection — such as pending applications or stay orders — would prevent the removal of these encroachments. Local bodies and their officials have been directed to actively report and remove illegal occupations.

Section 163-A termed arbitrary, unconstitutional

The judgment came in response to a petition filed by Poonam Gupta, who challenged the constitutionality of Section 163-A. This provision, introduced by the state in 2002, gave the government the power to legalise occupation of government land by underprivileged or landless individuals.

The high court ruled that the provision violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. “Legalising encroachments undermines rule of law,” the bench noted, adding that state property cannot be converted into private holdings through legislation favouring illegal occupation.

The judges also pointed out a contradiction in the state’s stance: while it claims to strengthen laws against encroachment under Section 163, it simultaneously introduced Section 163-A to legitimise the same encroachments, an approach the court called “arbitrary and unethical”.

Government’s policy under fire, accountability sought

While the state government defended Section 163-A as a welfare measure to support small and marginal farmers, the high court rejected this rationale. It emphasised that the government’s role was to protect state property, not legalise illegality.

The high court also called for greater accountability of government officials, questioning how such widespread and longstanding encroachments were allowed to persist. It further asked the state to reconsider removing another controversial clause under Section 163, which currently allows an encroacher to claim ownership through adverse possession, a legal loophole the court termed dangerous.