Our Terms & Conditions | Our Privacy Policy
Himachal Pradesh High Court nullifies Section 163-A of the HP Land Revenue Act
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh August 5, 2025 declared section 163-A of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 that empowered the state government to frame rules for regularising encroachments on government land as unconstitutional.
The order passed by Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bipin Chander Negi said, “Section 163-A of H.P. Land Revenue Act is manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional and as a consequence thereof, Section 163-A of H.P. Land Revenue Act and Rules framed thereunder (Section 163-A) of the said Act are quashed”.
The HC observed that taking into account the magnitude of encroachments made on government land in Himachal Pradesh, the state government should consider amendment in the law pertaining to “criminal trespass” by bringing it in consonance with the state amendments as have been made in the state of Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Odisha.
The concerned authorities were directed to ensure removal of encroachment on the government land, in accordance with law, by “initiating suitable proceedings against encroachers and taking such proceedings to its logical end as expeditiously as possible preferably on or before 28th February, 2026”.
The HC directed that any stay / protection granted against removal of encroachment or any other ground including the ground with reference to rule / draft rules notified by the government or regularisation of encroachment, including Draft Rules notified in the year 2017 would stand vacated and any such order is declared ineffective and unenforceable against the proceedings pending or to be withheld for removal of encroachment from the government land.
Further, directions issued in the HC judgment of January 8, 2015 “are extended for removal of encroachment from all type of government land / premises including the proceedings initiated or to be initiated under HP Public Premises Act and / or Section 163 of HP Land Revenue Act as well”.
The state of Himachal Pradesh was directed to make suitable changes in law by amending relevant act and rules appropriately to assign duty on the office bearers of concerned Nagar Panchayat, Nagar Parishad and Nagar Nigam as well as Executive Officer / Commissioner to report the encroachment, to take action for removal of encroachment and regarding consequences of violation of such duty.
The state government should consider removal of the provision from Section 163 of the HP Land Revenue Act, whereby an encroacher can claim title thereupon in terms of the law of adverse possession, the order said.
In cases where land has been acquired for public purpose including roads / path vesting its possession to the court / public authority and previous owner has either not vacated the land or property to the government / public authority or re occupied such acquired land by raising construction or otherwise, during eviction from such possession / encroachment, plea of adverse possession should not be available. Instead such possessor / encroacher apart from cost of removal, shall also be liable to pay use and occupation charges as well as receiving of benefits deserved from such land / property.
Advocate General was directed to transmit the copy of the judgment to the Chief Secretary, Himachal Pradesh and all concerned for immediate compliance, with directions to take appropriate action against the Revenue Authorities as per law in whose jurisdiction land has been permitted to be encroached upon.
Centre to decide on felling of trees for Mulla Periyar Baby Dam: SC
Tamil Nadu informed the Supreme Court (SC) July 31, 2025 that cutting of 23 trees (in the Periyar Tiger Reserve near the Mullaperiyar dam) is essential for reinforcing the structure of the Baby Dam. Jaideep Gupta, senior counsel, representing the state of Kerala informed that the state government has already accorded the necessary permission.
The SC instructed the Union of India to verify and, after ascertaining that the necessary permission has been accorded by Kerala, requisite steps for granting environmental clearance be taken. The order was issued by a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.
The SC was informed that for grouting of the dam, the Supervisory Committee of Mulla Periyar Dam has recommended that remotely operated vehicle (ROV) study be carried out by Tamil Nadu. As per the report of the Supervisory Committee, Tamil Nadu should first complete the ROV study and based thereupon, the grouting work has to be commenced.
Once the study is completed by Tamil Nadu and a report is forwarded to Kerala, the state of Kerala should accord necessary permission so that the grouting work would commence.
With respect to the repair and construction of the Vallakadavu Ghat road, SC said that construction work should be carried out in the month of September and October 2025 (the non-monsoon period). The SC will next hear the case on November 12, 2025.
NGT directs MoEFCC & state of Uttarakhand to file reply on amendments in Doon Valley Notification
On August 5, 2025, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) instructed the state of Uttarakhand to submit a response regarding the Doon Valley Notification issued on May 13, 2025, which modifies the previous Notification from February 1, 1989.
The application filed by Dev Bhoomi Manav Sansadhan Vikas Samiti said that the issuance of the Doon Valley Notification February 1, 1989 was in pursuance to the judgment of the Supreme Court (in the matter of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors. reported in AIR 1989 594). The Notification of 1989 recognises that the Doon Valley is an ecologically sensitive area requiring special environmental safeguards.
In addition to Uttarakhand, the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) and the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) was directed to file a reply on the matter.
The submission of Counsel for the applicant is that the amendment Notification, May 13, 2025 takes away the protection, which was extended to the Doon Valley vide original Notification dated February 1, 1989.
The counsel appearing for the Applicant had pointed out the un-amended clauses (iii), (iv) and (v) of the Notification dated February 1, 1989 which provide as under:
(iii) Tourism: It should be as per Tourism Development Plan (TDP), to be prepared by the State Department of Tourism and duly approved by the Union Ministry of Environment & Forest
(iv) Grazing: As per the plan to be prepared by the State Government and duly approved by the Union Ministry of Environment & Forests
(v) Land Use: As per Master Plan of development and Land Use Plan of the entire area, to be prepared by the State Government and approved by the Union Ministry of Environment & Forests.
The counsel for the applicant said that vide notification May 13, 2025, the above three clauses have been substituted by the following new clauses:
for paragraphs (iii), (iv) and (v) the following paragraphs shall be substituted, namely:
(iii) Tourism plan, grazing plan, master plan of development and land use plan, and any other such Plan including Zonal Master Plan, Integrated Master Plan shall be prepared by the State Government with due involvement of all concerned State Departments such as Environment, Forest, Urban Development, Tourism, Municipality, Revenue, Public Works, Water Resources, Horticulture, Panchayati Raj, Rural Development, Pollution Control Board for integrating environmental concern into it and shall be approved by the competent authority in the State Government of Uttarakhand
(iv) The projects which are not covered under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification issued vide number S.O. 1533 (E), dated the 14th September, 2006, however, falls under the orange category of industries shall be considered by the Uttarakhand State Pollution Control Board following the due process
(v) The projects which are covered in the Schedule under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, issued vide number S.O. 1533 (E), dated the 14th September, 2006, shall follow the procedure laid down in that notification”.
The submission was that by virtue of the above amendment, the entire powers relating to tourism plan, grazing plan, master plan of development and land use plan have been given to the state government without any control by the central government.
The 2025 notification runs counter to the observations made by the Uttarakhand High Court in the order, September 6, 2023 wherein the HC said that “Our experience has shown, and we are pained and dismayed to notice, that the policy of the State, in practice, appears to be only to commercialise the hills, and to generate more and more revenues, by permitting commercial activities. There is very little emphasis on actual preservation and protection of the environment”.
“The State appears to be completely insensitised and blind to the enormous environmental degradation that the entire State – and not just the Doon Valley is suffering. No wonder, the State is urging the MoEFCC to repeal the Doon Valley Notification in toto,” the order of the HC said.
The Uttarakhand High Court had also directed the state to formulate the Tourism Development Plan and to seek approval of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Uttarakhand was also directed to prepare a plan for grazing and get it approved from the MoEFCC.
Coming to the present day, the counsel for the applicant informed the NGT that instead of preparing the tourism plan and taking other action, the 2025 notification was issued which will have the adverse effect on the ecology of the area.
Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.
Aggregated From –
Comments are closed.