SHIMLA, AUGUST 5:
Himachal Pradesh High Court on Tuesday struck down Section 163-A of the HP Land Revenue Act, calling it “unconstitutional, illegal and a threat to rule of law”.
The scrapped section had allowed the government to regularise encroachments on state land, including forests — a move the court said violated constitutional principles and encouraged criminal trespass.
A division bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bipin Chander Negi, while hearing CWP No. 1028 of 2002, came down heavily on the state for attempting to legalise illegal occupations under the garb of helping the poor.
“Blanket regularisation of encroachments, without distinguishing between the helpless and the willful grabbers, amounts to rewarding dishonesty,” the court observed, adding, “Public property is not meant for private looting.”
The court ruled that Section 163-A not only contradicted earlier court orders but also undermined the existing Section 163 of the same Act, which already provides a legal framework to deal with encroachments.
Apple Orchards on Forest Land Must Go
The court ordered statewide removal of all apple orchards raised on forest land, calling the cultivation of apple — a non-forest species — a clear violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
“Apple cultivation involves chemical use, fencing and commercial activity, which is incompatible with the forest ecosystem,” the court said.
“The practice must stop immediately. Forest land must be restored with native species.”
Earlier, the Forest Department had told the court that several evicted encroachers were trying to reclaim possession using hail nets and fencing during the ongoing apple season.
The court allowed auctioning of harvested fruit but barred any further cultivation or use of the land.
Encroachment Crackdown: No More Excuses
The High Court’s sweeping directions now have the force of law until formal legislation is amended. Highlights include:
-
Monthly monitoring reports from forest guards, patwaris, panchayat secretaries.
-
Disconnection of electricity and water to all illegal structures on government land.
-
Recovery of profits made from trees, orchards, or crops grown on encroached land — to be recovered as arrears.
-
Immediate fencing and restoration of vacated land at the cost of encroachers.
-
Criminal cases against those reoccupying land or officials who delay action.
-
Training and accountability of revenue and enforcement officers.
-
Police protection to be provided during evictions.
“Failure to act will be treated as dereliction of duty,” the bench ruled.
“Officials found complicit will face suspension, dismissal and prosecution.”
Adverse Possession Criticised
The court also slammed the misuse of adverse possession — an outdated British-era legal doctrine — calling it unjust and unconstitutional.
“A trespasser cannot be rewarded simply for staying long enough. This concept violates the principle of fairness and must go,”* the bench observed.
No Stay Orders, No New Policies
The court declared all previous draft rules, stay orders, and proposed policies to regularise encroachments as null and void. It set a deadline of February 28, 2026 for the complete removal of all encroachments on forest and government land.
Government Duty and Public Trust
The court reminded the state of its constitutional and environmental duties:
“The State holds natural resources in trust for the people. It cannot distribute them at will. The principle of intergenerational equity demands we preserve forests for future generations.”
The Chief Secretary has been directed to circulate the order to all departments and ensure immediate compliance.
As a matter of fact, Section 163-A was added when the then BJP government rolled out a land regularisation policy, inviting farmers and occupants to apply for ownership rights over encroached government land by paying a nominal fee of ₹1,000 to ₹2,093 per application.Here’s the developed news story in crisp, colloquial style with your quote:
REACTION: Forest Eviction Orders Should Apply to Govt Projects Too: Ex-VC Dr. Vijay Singh Thakur
Shimla – Reacting to the recent High Court-backed eviction drive affecting over 1.65 lakh people across Himachal Pradesh for alleged encroachment on forest land, former Vice-Chancellor of Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Dr. Vijay Singh Thakur, has called for equal treatment for government projects.
“If the primary reason for such action is environmental protection or climate change mitigation, then the same yardstick must apply to government constructions, road expansions, and tree felling in forest areas,” Dr. Thakur said.
He urged the Hon’ble High Court to direct that all government works involving forest land clearance should also face the same legal scrutiny and be completed or halted by 28 February 2026.
Dr. Thakur stressed that environmental conservation cannot be selective. “Nature doesn’t differentiate between a private hut and a government building when it comes to deforestation and climate impact,” he added, pointing out that forests are vanishing at a faster pace under official projects than by small-scale occupation.
"Farmers betrayed again": Rakesh Singha reacts
Reacting sharply to the court’s decision, Theog MLA and senior CPM leader Rakesh Singha, also a key voice in the Himachal Seb Utpadak Sangh (Apple Growers’ Association), said the judgment could deal a massive blow to marginal farmers who had hoped to secure legal ownership of the land they’ve been tilling for decades.
“Many farmers had paid money and submitted applications in good faith. Now the court has declared the very foundation—Section 163-A— as invalid and illegal. "
"This is bad in law and raises serious questions about the intentions and legal preparedness of the then government,” he said.
Singha pointed out that the judgment might reclassify these applicants as encroachers, which would have far-reaching legal and livelihood consequences for thousands of poor farming families.
“Even film of land regularisation was played nine times, but nothing came of it,” he said sarcastically, referring to the repeated policy attempts by different governments.
Call for Supreme Court appeal
Singha urged the current Sukhu-led Congress government to immediately challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court, saying the issue is not merely legal but one of social justice.
“When governments pass laws to help big corporations acquire forest and wasteland through ‘project permissions’, then why can’t the same principle apply to poor farmers who’ve cultivated these lands for generations?” he asked.
He also questioned why successive governments failed to strengthen the legal basis of this policy, despite widespread support and repeated promises during elections.
“This is a classic case of political opportunism where both BJP and Congress used farmers as vote banks and abandoned them after getting elected,” Singha alleged.
What’s at stake?
-
1.65 lakh+ applicants who submitted forms under Section 163-A may now lose legal claim over land.
-
Many had paid fees and waited decades for mutation and ownership.
-
Majority are small and marginal farmers relying on these lands for livelihood.
-
The land regularisation drive has now been legally undermined and politically discredited.
The judgment also brings under scanner the state’s history of forest and land use policies, especially in cases where revenue lands overlap with forest areas.
Many of the applicants fall outside the Forest Conservation Act (1980) cut-off date of October 25, 1980—making regularisation more complex.
The road ahead
Legal experts believe the only remedy now lies with the Supreme Court, which will have to examine whether the Himachal High Court’s interpretation of "illegal encroachment" overrides the state’s right to enact land policies for public welfare.
Meanwhile, Singha said a statewide mobilisation will be launched to pressure the government into acting swiftly.
“This isn't just about land. It's about dignity, livelihood and justice for Himachal’s farmers,” he said, announcing a phone-in meeting of affected groups and activists this evening.
Reaction 2.
All hopes of small & marginalised farmers scuttled badly. Still hope sustains life. Forest Rights Act 2006 provides another breather to farmers.
This Act has an over riding effect and recognises the rights traditional forest dwellers-
A Legal Expert, requesting anonymity
3. Landmark judgement
High Court strikes at the very roots of the encroachment mafia and the murky politics of those so called leaders, who having lost all relevance are desperately trying to latch on to an issue, no matter how untenable, to garner a few votes in the next elections
-Raj K Machhan, HIFORM, Rohru.
#HimachalHighCourt #LandRegularisation #Section163A #FarmersRights #JudicialSetback