Himachal HC quashes Section 163-A of state's Land Revenue Act
A division bench of the High Court consisting of Justice Vivek Thakur and Justice Bipin Chander Negi ruled that the "Section 163-A of HP Land Revenue Act is manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional and as a consequence the section and the rules framed there under the said section are quashed".
Putting an end to long litigation, the judgment directed the state government to initiate eviction proceedings expeditiously against all such encroachments that were to be covered under the section 163A, preferably on or before February 28, 2026.
The dimensions of the encroachments can be measured from the reply of the government which said that there were approximately 57,549 cases of encroachment covering an area of about 1,23,835 bighas of government land.
The encroached government land is about 10,320 hectares and in terms of the rules framed under the impugned provision, 1,67,339 applications were received for regularisation up to August 15, 2002 and taking into account the magnitude of encroachments, the high court directed the state government to consider an amendment in the law pertaining to "criminal trespass".
The high court clearly stated that any stay granted against removal of encroachment shall stand vacated and also directed the government to make suitable changes in law by amending the relevant Act and rules appropriately to assign duty on the office bearers of Nagar Panchayat, Nagar Parishad and Nagar Nigam as well as executive officer/commissioner concerned to report the encroachment for taking action to remove of encroachment.
The HC also instructed the advocate general to transmit the copy of the judgment to the chief secretary of the sate government and all concerned with immediate compliance.
Since 1983, successive governments issued various notifications for regularisation of encroachments and the July 4, 1983 notification permitted regularisation up to five bighas on a nominal fee of ₹50 per bigha.
Section 163-A was introduced in 2002 during the first tenure of the then chief minister Prem Kumar Dhumal to frame rules for regularising encroachments, with the stated objective of helping small and marginal farmers.
However, the High Court on Tuesday ruled that the provision was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before law and attempted to legitimise illegal acts.
"The impugned provision is in fact legislation for a class of dishonest persons and equality cannot be claimed in illegality," the judgment said.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
11 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC cites ‘worst order' as it takes HC judge off criminal matters
The Supreme Court has directed that an Allahabad High Court judge be stripped of all criminal jurisdiction until his retirement and made to sit with a seasoned senior judge to understand the nuances of law, after finding his recent ruling to be one of the 'worst and most erroneous' orders encountered by the top court. The unusual direction, issued by a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, came in a criminal matter where the high court judge, Justice Prashant Kumar, dismissed a plea seeking quashing of a criminal case based on what the apex court termed as a purely civil dispute. 'We are constrained to observe that the impugned order is one of the worst and most erroneous orders that we have come across in our respective tenures as judges of this Court... The judge concerned has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice. We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian Judiciary at the level of High Court,' said the bench in its order on Monday, expressing grave dismay over the judge's conduct. It wondered whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. 'Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable,' stated the bench. The top court went on to direct the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court to immediately withdraw the present 'criminal determination' from the judge, and ensure he does not handle any criminal jurisdiction henceforth. 'We direct that the concerned judge shall not be assigned any criminal determination, till he demits office. If at all at some point of time, he is to be made to sit as a single judge, he shall not be assigned any criminal determination,' the bench ordered. Justice Kumar will retire in May 2029. It also urged the high court chief justice to assign the judge to sit on a division bench with a senior judge to guide him. 'The Chief Justice shall make the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court,' stated the order. 'We have been constrained to issue directions…keeping in mind that the impugned order is not the only erroneous order of the concerned judge that we have looked into for the first time. Many such erroneous orders have been looked into by us over a period of time,' noted the court, indicating a pattern of concern regarding the judge's decisions. The court's directions, notably removing a sitting High Court judge from an entire category of judicial work, are rare and underscore the gravity with which the bench viewed the matter. The judgment came in an appeal against an order passed by Justice Kumar in May 2025, rejecting a plea to quash criminal proceedings in a complaint case. The dispute arose after Lalita Textiles, a small business, filed a criminal complaint against another firm, alleging non-payment of ₹7.23 lakh for supplied thread. Although a significant portion of the ₹52.34 lakh invoice had been paid, a balance remained unpaid. Lalita Textiles first attempted to register a first information report, but the police declined, stating it was a civil matter. The complainant then filed a criminal complaint, invoking Section 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust), which led to issuance of summons by a magistrate. The other firm, M/s Shikhar Chemicals, sought quashing of the summons before the high court, arguing that the matter was a contractual dispute involving recovery of money, which was a civil issue at its core. However, Justice Kumar refused to quash the proceedings, reasoning that since the complainant was a small business and lacked the resources to fight a long-drawn civil case, it should be allowed to pursue the criminal case to recover his dues. 'To be more precise, it would seem like good money chasing bad money,' he observed in the impugned order. The apex court took deep exception to these observations. 'Is it the understanding of the High Court that ultimately if the accused is convicted, the trial court would award him the balance amount? The observations recorded are shocking,' the bench held. Citing the impugned order, the bench added: 'It was expected of the High Court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil dispute a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of law.' The bench highlighted that even the magistrate had failed to understand the fundamental legal distinction between a sale transaction and entrustment of goods, and thereby misapplied Section 406 of IPC. 'We are not taken by surprise with the magistrate exhibiting complete ignorance of law as regards the position of law…However, we expected at least the High Court to understand the fine distinction between the two offences and the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust,' it said. The order added: 'The Judge has gone to the extent of saying that asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount will be very unreasonable as civil suit may take a long time before it is decided and, therefore, the complainant should be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount.' Calling it an 'extremely sad day' for the judiciary, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary powers to set aside the high court's order without even issuing notice to the other side. The case has now been remanded to the Allahabad High Court to be heard afresh by a different judge, as chosen by the Chief Justice.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
41 minutes ago
- First Post
Vance ‘most likely' Maga successor, ‘probably' won't run for third term: Trump
Trump said Vance was 'most likely' to succeed him as the leader of the Maga movement, though he stressed it was too early to decide. He also said he would 'probably not' run for a third term read more US President Donald Trump on Tuesday (August 5) said Vice President JD Vance was 'most likely' the heir to his Make America Great Again (Maga) movement, though he added it was still too early to make a definitive call. Earlier, during an interview with CNBC, Trump also said he would 'probably not' run for a third presidential term, a comment that follows ongoing speculation about his political future. Although the US Constitution limits presidents to two terms, Trump has previously hinted at the possibility of seeking a third run in 2028, sparking debate over whether he might try to push for an amendment. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'I'd like to run,' Trump said in the interview. 'I have the best poll numbers I've ever had.' Trump's comments came in response to a question about Secretary of State Marco Rubio's praise for JD Vance. Rubio had said Vance 'would be a great nominee if he decides he wants to do that.' Asked if Vance was his likely political successor, Trump replied, 'I think most likely, in all fairness, he's the vice president.' He added, 'I think Marco is also somebody that maybe would get together with JD in some form.' Trump also noted that there were several strong voices within the movement. 'I also think we have incredible people, some of the people on the stage right here,' he said. 'So it's too early, obviously, to talk about it, but certainly he's doing a great job, and he would be probably favored at this point.'
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Aadhaar now mandatory for income certificates in Delhi
NEW DELHI As per the notification, individuals without an Aadhaar ID must now apply for enrolment to be eligible for benefits. (Representative photo) Lieutenant governor VK Saxena on Tuesday approved the Delhi government's proposal to make Aadhaar ID numbers mandatory to issue income certificates, which is crucial to avail of financial benefits from state-run welfare schemes, officials aware of the matter said. This will curb misuse of benefits and ensure subsidies reach intended beneficiaries, they said. A senior official of the LG secretariat said that Saxena cleared the revenue department's proposal for notifying the service of 'issuance of income certificate' under Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016. 'This provision allows the state or central government to mandate Aadhaar authentication to establish the identity of individuals receiving subsidies or services funded by the Consolidated Fund of India or the State,' the official, asking not to be named, said. The Supreme Court, while deciding the validity of the Aadhaar Act in September 2018, upheld Section 7 of the Act, which makes Aadhaar mandatory for availing of state subsidies, benefits and services. But where no services or benefits are provided by the state, the court held that Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory. However, the court held linking Aadhaar with PAN to be mandatory and valid. As per the notification, individuals without an Aadhaar ID must now apply for enrolment to be eligible for benefits. 'Minors can produce an Aadhaar enrolment or biometric update slip along with their birth certificate or school ID card. Adults can furnish enrolment slips with valid ID documents, such as a bank passbook, PAN card, driving licence, passport, or Kisan photo passbook,' a second officer of the LG secretariat said. Income certificates issued by the Delhi government are a critical document for beneficiaries to access welfare schemes, such as tuition fee reimbursements for SC/ST/OBC students, pensions and financial assistance under Delhi Arogya Kosh, among others. The first official cited above said that Aadhaar-based authentication will simplify the service delivery process, reduce paperwork, and enhance transparency and efficiency. 'The revenue department noted that the use of Aadhaar would allow direct and seamless delivery of services to eligible beneficiaries and remove the need for producing multiple identity documents. The move is also in line with a circular issued by the UIDAI on November 25, 2019, authorising state governments to mandate Aadhaar authentication for schemes funded by the State's Consolidated Fund,' the official said. The LG also directed the revenue department to ensure wide publicity of the Aadhaar requirement so that no legitimate beneficiary is left out of government support due to a lack of awareness.
