Mere Use Of Encroached Forest Land Does Not Make Person Necessary Party In Eviction Proceedings Filed By Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that individuals who merely use a path or road constructed on a forest do not have locus standi to challenge an eviction order against the encroachers.

Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua: “Petitioners were not necessary parties to the lis before the Collector Forest. They have no locus standi for assailing the order passed by Collector Forest. Mere user of encroachment over the encroached/broken forest land would not make a person necessary party in the eviction proceedings filed by owner of the land against the culprits.”

Background Facts:

In August 2022, the Collector, Forest Division Kullu, passed an eviction order against the Block Development Officer, Naggar and the Gram Panchayat, Naogi, for illegally constructing a cemented road on forest land in Kullu

Thereafter, the petitioners, Nishant Mahajan and another, filed an application before the collector forest under Order 9 Rule 13 to set aside the eviction order, claiming it was passed ex parte. However, the application was rejected and the petitioners then filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, which was dismissed for lack of locus standi.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of their appeal and the original eviction order, the petitioners approached the High Court, claiming that the eviction order denied them access to their property and violated their fundamental rights.

Contentions:

The State contended that the dispute was between the Forest Department and the encroachers, the Gram Panchayat and the Block Development officer, who had unauthorizedly occupied forest land. The petitioners had no ownership rights over the forest land, and they could not challenge the eviction.

Findings:

The High Court held that the petitioners were not necessary parties to the original eviction proceedings because they did not own the forest land. It held that “Mere user of encroachment over the encroached/broken forest land would not make a person a necessary party in the eviction proceedings filed by the owner of the land against the culprits.”

The Court observed that the petitioners' claim as mere users of the road was an easementary right. So the plea, even if raised before the collector, would not have impacted the decision of the case. The Collector Forest does not have jurisdiction to decide on private easement claims.

The Court noted that, according to the records, the petitioner had previously challenged the same eviction order under Article 227 of the Constitution, which was dismissed. So, now they cannot challenge the same order again under Article 226 of the Constitution, as barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.

It further recorded that the land was not owned by the petitioners and is a forest land owned by the State, covered with Deodar, Kail & Popular trees standing on it.

The Court observed that, according to the demarcation report, it was evident that the petitioners had misled the Court by projecting that the road in question had been in existence from “times immemorial” and was also being used by the general public. The road was not being used by the general public, or for that matter, anyone else besides the petitioners.

Thus, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Name: Nishant Mahajan & Anr. v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 8554 of 2024

Date of Decision: 04.07.2025

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vipul Sharda & Mr. Abhinav M. Goel, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 5.

Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.6

Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate, for the intervener/respondent No.7

Click Here To Read/Download Order