Introduction:

In a landmark judgment delivered on August 5, 2025, the Himachal Pradesh High Court struck down Section 163-A of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1952, declaring it unconstitutional and arbitrary. The case arose from a petition filed in 2002 by Punam Gupta and Hardesh Arya challenging the provision, which empowered the State Government to frame rules for the regularisation of encroachments on government land. A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bipin Chander Negi observed that the said provision effectively encouraged and legitimised illegal occupation of government land, thereby violating the principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The Court criticised the provision as being a legislative device aimed at protecting a class of dishonest individuals at the cost of the rule of law and public interest. The impugned law allowed the regularisation of encroachments by granting up to five bighas of land to landless individuals and up to twenty bighas in exceptional cases. However, the Court ruled that such provisions were inherently discriminatory, arbitrary, and in contradiction with the parent statute itself, particularly Section 163 of the 1952 Act, which provides a mechanism for the removal—not the legitimisation—of encroachments. The State’s own submissions revealed that by 2002, there had already been 57,549 identified encroachments over 10,320 hectares of government land and that 1,67,339 applications for regularisation had been received, clearly indicating systemic abuse of the provision in question. The Court deemed it imperative to strike down such statutory backing for illegality.

Arguments by the Petitioners:

The petitioners, Punam Gupta and Hardesh Arya, argued that Section 163-A was fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional as it incentivised lawlessness by providing a legal route to regularise illegal encroachments. They contended that the provision lacked any rational basis or classification and treated illegal encroachers on par with law-abiding citizens who had respected public property. This, they argued, was in direct violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and prohibits arbitrary state action. The petitioners maintained that public land, being a resource held in trust for the community, cannot be distributed arbitrarily or used to confer benefits upon lawbreakers. The counsel submitted that such laws undermine the sanctity of the legal system and create a precedent that erodes public confidence in governance. They also pointed out that the provision contradicts Section 163 of the very same statute, which outlines procedures for the eviction of encroachers and mandates action against illegal occupations. Moreover, the petitioners warned that allowing such encroachments to be regularised would lead to environmental degradation and depletion of valuable land resources, especially in a hilly and ecologically sensitive state like Himachal Pradesh. They urged the Court to safeguard constitutional principles and to direct the State to enforce removal of all encroachments through legal and administrative means without favour or exception.

Arguments by the Respondents (State Government):

On the contrary, the State Government defended the enactment of Section 163-A by stating that the provision was aimed at social welfare, particularly benefiting landless individuals and small farmers who had occupied government land out of necessity. It was argued that the regularisation mechanism served a dual purpose: providing security of tenure to poor residents and generating revenue for the State through the regularisation process. The government contended that the provision was not arbitrary but was implemented under well-defined rules that limited the extent of regularisation to five bighas for landless individuals and up to twenty bighas in special circumstances. The State claimed this selective benefit did not violate Article 14 as it had a reasonable nexus to the object of providing equitable development and welfare to marginalised sections. Moreover, the State attempted to draw parallels with similar provisions adopted in other states and argued that inaction on the part of the government in the past had led to substantial settlements on public land, and removing such large-scale encroachments would lead to mass displacements, social unrest, and economic hardship. The government also argued that the regularisation scheme was designed to bring unauthorised land usage into the legal fold, thereby ensuring better regulation and management of land use across the state.

Court’s Judgment and Analysis:

In its detailed 44-page verdict, the Himachal Pradesh High Court systematically dismantled the justifications offered by the State Government and declared Section 163-A manifestly arbitrary, excessive, and unconstitutional. The Court held that the provision created a perverse incentive for citizens to encroach upon public land with the hope of subsequent regularisation, thereby rewarding illegality and encouraging future violations. The Bench underscored that such legislation, rather than serving the public interest, catered to a class of lawbreakers and undermined the rule of law. The Court observed that there was no intelligible differentia in the classification of beneficiaries under the provision that could justify the selective regularisation of encroachments, thus failing the test of permissible classification under Article 14. The judges noted that Section 163-A was not only contrary to the objectives of the parent statute, which aims to protect public land and remove encroachments, but also violated other constitutional mandates. In particular, the Court held that the provision compromised Article 21 when read with Articles 48-A (protection and improvement of environment) and 51-A(g) (fundamental duty to protect natural resources), since legalising encroachments disturbed ecological balance and deprived future generations of their environmental rights. The judgment also took serious note of the administrative apathy that allowed encroachments to flourish, stating that government officials had failed in their statutory duties and had adopted an “ostrich-like” approach by turning a blind eye to the growing menace of encroachment. The Court stated in clear terms that judicial intervention was necessary to prevent further misuse of public property by vested interests. Accordingly, Section 163-A and all rules framed under it were quashed with immediate effect. The Court issued a series of directions to ensure that the verdict translates into actionable reform. First, the State Government was directed to initiate legal proceedings for removal of all encroachments on government land, with a firm deadline of February 28, 2026, to complete the process. Second, all stays or protections against eviction, whether arising from the current petition or any other pending legal process or rule drafts, were declared vacated and unenforceable. Third, the Court directed the State to consider amending its laws relating to criminal trespass in line with stronger provisions adopted in Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, and Odisha. Fourth, the State was instructed to amend relevant statutes and rules to impose direct legal duties on municipal officials, including Nagar Panchayat and Nagar Nigam functionaries, to detect and report encroachments, and to face consequences in case of inaction. Fifth, the Court extended its 2015 directions from earlier PILs (CWPIL Nos. 9 of 2015 and 17 of 2014) regarding eviction of encroachments from all public land and premises. Sixth, the Court examined Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, which allows encroachers to claim land under the doctrine of adverse possession, and directed the State Government to consider removing this provision in light of apex court rulings such as State of Haryana vs. Mukesh Kumar (2011) and Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs. Manjit Kaur (2019) which caution against using adverse possession to defeat public interest. Lastly, in cases where land has already been acquired for public purpose and the previous owner has either refused to vacate or has reoccupied it, the Court ruled that such persons will not be entitled to claim adverse possession. Instead, they will be liable to pay use and occupation charges, as well as the cost of eviction. Through this comprehensive judgment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the principle that constitutional governance cannot accommodate policy measures which legalise illegal acts. It has called upon the State to act decisively to reclaim public land, protect the environment, and uphold the rule of law.