{"id":355864,"date":"2025-08-06T17:00:08","date_gmt":"2025-08-06T11:30:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=355864"},"modified":"2025-08-13T15:36:40","modified_gmt":"2025-08-13T10:06:40","slug":"s-163a-hp-land-revenue-act-declared-unconstitutional-hp-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/s-163a-hp-land-revenue-act-declared-unconstitutional-hp-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018The provision is a legislation for class of dishonest persons\u2019: Himachal Pradesh HC declares S. 163-A H.P. Land Revenue Act unconstitutional"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Himachal Pradesh High Court:<\/span> In the present petition, the constitutional validity of Section 163-A of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 (\u20181954 Act\u2019) was challenged on the grounds that the provision encouraged illegal occupation of Government land. The Division Bench of Vivek Singh Thakur and Bipin Chander Negi*<\/span>, JJ., while observing that the provision defeated the very purpose for which the Statute was created and violated the very edifice of the principal statute, declared it unconstitutional as being violative of Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/h3>\n

The present petition was filed in 2002, questioning the validity of Section 163-A of the 1954 Act whereby the encroachments on Government land were sought to be regularised. The State in its reply to the petition informed that there existed approximately 57,549 cases of encroachments on Government land in the State covering an area of about 1,23,835 bighas or 10,320 hectares.<\/p>\n

Earlier, the cases of encroachments on Government land used to be decided under Rule 27-A of the H.P. Nautor Land Rules, 1968 but it was kept in abeyance. From 1983, the instructions qua regularisation of encroachments were issued by the Government from time to time and the same were ultimately revised in 1994 permitting the regularisation of up to 2 bighas of the land contiguous to the ownership land, which was challenged by way of public interest litigation. The Court, while striking it down, had expressed anguish on the Government\u2019s failure to protect its property and indulging in legalising an illegality by an executive action in favour of unscrupulous people who had encroached by violating the provisions of law.<\/p>\n

Thereafter, a high-powered committee (\u2018HPC\u2019) was constituted to examine the issue of encroachment in the State and was asked to suggest a viable solution to the endemic problem. The HPC proposed the incorporation of Section 163-A in the 1954 Act, in other words, to legalise illegality. Upon the HPC\u2019s recommendations, response of public at large and Panchayati Raj Institutions and after the discussions at various levels, the State brought about the amendment to incorporate Section 163-A in the 1954 Act.<\/p>\n

The petitioner submitted that during pendency of present petition, the State, vide Notification dated 19-04-2017, had notified Draft Rules for regularization of encroachment by publishing it in the Rajpatra of Himachal Pradesh for inviting objections. Though the Rules were never finalised, but on the basis of said Draft-Notification, many people had approached this Court for staying the eviction proceedings initiated by competent authorities for removal of encroachment from the Government land and in a number of cases, this Court had granted the stay till the formation of such Rules, but subject to their judicial scrutiny. However, the Advocate General, informed that the State Government was not going to frame any Rules for regularization of encroachment based on the Draft Rules or otherwise and as on date, there was no such proposal pending with the Government.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision:<\/h3>\n

The Court referred to State of Bihar<\/span> v. Bihar Distillery Ltd.<\/span>, (1997) 2 SCC 453<\/span><\/a>, and observed that an enactment represented the will of the people and hence carried with it a presumption of constitutionality. A Court was expected to recognize the fundamental nature and importance of the legislative process and accord due regard and deference to the same and the unconstitutionality of an enactment must be plainly and clearly established.<\/p>\n

The Court cited S.D. Bandi<\/span> v. Karnataka SRTC<\/span>, (2011) 15 SCC 695<\/span><\/a>, wherein the Supreme Court had directed the Governments of all the States and Union Territories to consider the desirability of making amendment in Section 441<\/a> IPC<\/a>, in line with the State amendments made by Orissa and Uttar Pradesh and to make unauthorised occupation of public premises a non-bailable offence but noted that the Union of India stated that there was no necessity to amend the law as the number of unauthorised occupants was very small.<\/p>\n

The Court emphasised that it was the duty of the State to govern, and good governance included implementation of the statutes in existence which dealt with encroachment. The Government\u2019s failure to have the provisions of such a statute implemented amounted to a failure in the governance and promoted dishonesty while encouraging the violation of law.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that in making laws and in understanding the scope and purport of laws enacted by the State Legislatures the principles, namely, \u2018Inter-Generational Equity\u2019, \u2018Sustainable Development\u2019, \u2018Public Trust Doctrine\u2019, \u2018State responsibility\u2019, \u2018Individual responsibility\u2019, and Articles 48-A<\/a>, 51-A(g)<\/a> and 21<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, were to be kept in mind.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that by condoning the illegal acts of the violators who carried out encroachments, the State intended to treat such law breakers as equal to those persons who abided by the law which was arbitrary because by treating un-equals alike, the State was violating Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/span> The Court noted that the object of the impugned provision was violative of Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> as Article 14 was not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud but was a positive concept.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that in the present case, even though the classification of the persons was based on intelligible differentia as it consisted of those persons who carried out encroachments in violation of the statutory provisions, it was not a valid classification as envisaged under Article 14 because the regularization of illegal encroachments could not be said to have a nexus with the object sought to be achieved, which in any case had to be lawful.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that the impugned provision was destructive of the aim and object of the parent statute, defied the constitutional provisions, and was excessively contradictory and mutually destructive and therefore, such a statutory provision could not be permitted to remain on the statute book. The Court referred to Dina Nath<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>, (2010) 15 SCC 218<\/span><\/a>, wherein it was held that the Court could not be a silent spectator and was bound to perform its constitutional duty for ensuring that the public property was not frittered by unscrupulous elements in the power corridors and acts of grabbing public land were properly enquired into and appropriate remedial action was taken.<\/p>\n

The Court also noted that the functionaries adopted an ostrich like approach as it was not that thousands of encroachments came up overnight and that no action was taken against the erring officials, who, in connivance, allowed such encroachments to happen, throughout the State.<\/p>\n

Further, in the 1954 Act, under Section 163, an encroacher against whom proceedings for removal of encroachment were initiated could invoke a plea of adverse possession. The Court referred to State of Haryana<\/span> v. Mukesh Kumar<\/span>, (2011) 10 SCC 404<\/span><\/a>, wherein the archaic law of adverse possession was observed to be irrational, illogical, wholly disproportionate, in conflict with justice and one which an ordinary Indian citizen would find reprehensible.<\/p>\n

Considering the above analysis, the Court allowed the petition and passed the following directions among others:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Section 163-A of the 1954 Act was manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional and therefore Section 163-A and the Rules framed thereunder were quashed.<\/li>\n
  2. The State Government must consider amendment in the law pertaining to \u2018criminal trespass\u2019 by bringing it in consonance with the State amendments in Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Orissa.<\/li>\n
  3. To ensure removal of encroachment on the Government land by initiating suitable proceedings against the encroachers, to be concluded on or before 28-02-2026.<\/li>\n
  4. Any stay granted against removal of encroachment for pendency of this petition or any other ground, stood vacated and any such order was declared ineffective and unenforceable.<\/li>\n
  5. In light of Mukesh Kumar<\/span> (supra) and Ravinder Kaur Grewal<\/span> v. Manjit Kaur<\/span>, (2019) 8 SCC 729<\/span><\/a>, the State must consider removal of the provision from Section 163 of the 1954 Act, whereby an encroacher could claim title based on adverse possession.<\/li>\n
  6. \n

    In lands acquired for public purposes where the previous owner has either not vacated or re-occupied such land, plea of adverse possession would not be available and instead the encroacher would be liable to pay the cost of removal, use and occupation charges as well as receiving of benefits deserved from such land.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    [Punam Gupta v. State of H.P., 2025 SCC OnLine HP 3494<\/a>, decided on 05-08-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n

    *Judgment authored by: Justice Bipin Chander Negi<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n

    Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

    For the Petitioners:<\/span> Surinder Sharma, Advocate.<\/p>\n

    For the Respondents:<\/span> Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General and Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, [Senior Advocate] with Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, B.N. Misra, Sr. Advocate with Vandana Misra, Advocate.<\/p>\n

    Buy Constitution of India \u00a0HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

    \"Constitution<\/a><\/p>\n

    Buy Penal Code, 1860 \u00a0 HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

    \"penal<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    “By condoning the illegal acts of the violators who carry out encroachments, the State intends to treat such law breakers equal to those persons who abide by the law. This is arbitrariness, because by treating un-equals alike, the State is violating Article 14 of the Constitution.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":355870,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[36995,59243,78032,86759,86760,86756,2929,42998,83238,64553,84297,44175,86757,86755,86754,86758,3346],"class_list":["post-355864","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-adverse-possession","tag-article-14-constitution","tag-article-21-constitution","tag-article-48-a-constitution","tag-article-51-ag-constitution","tag-encroachments-on-government-land","tag-Himachal_Pradesh_High_Court","tag-intelligible-differentia","tag-inter-generational-equity","tag-justice-bipin-chander-negi","tag-justice-vivek-singh-thakur","tag-public-trust-doctrine","tag-regularisation-of-encroachments","tag-section-163-h-p-land-revenue-act-1954","tag-section-163-a-h-p-land-revenue-act-1954","tag-section-441-ipc","tag-sustainable_development"],"yoast_head":"\nHP HC declares S. 163-A H.P. Land Revenue Act unconstitutional | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Himachal Pradesh High Court declared Section 163-A of H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 as unconstitutional, calling it a legislation for class of dishonest persons.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/s-163a-hp-land-revenue-act-declared-unconstitutional-hp-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u2018The provision is a legislation for class of dishonest persons\u2019: Himachal Pradesh HC declares S. 163-A H.P. Land Revenue Act unconstitutional\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Himachal Pradesh High Court declared Section 163-A of H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 as unconstitutional, calling it a legislation for class of dishonest persons.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/s-163a-hp-land-revenue-act-declared-unconstitutional-hp-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-08-06T11:30:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-08-13T10:06:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/S.-163-A-HP-Land-Revenue-Act-unconstitutional.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"\u2018The provision is a legislation for class of dishonest persons\u2019: Himachal Pradesh HC declares S. 163-A H.P. Land Revenue Act unconstitutional\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/s-163a-hp-land-revenue-act-declared-unconstitutional-hp-hc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/s-163a-hp-land-revenue-act-declared-unconstitutional-hp-hc\/\",\"name\":\"HP HC declares S. 163-A H.P. Land Revenue Act unconstitutional | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/s-163a-hp-land-revenue-act-declared-unconstitutional-hp-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/s-163a-hp-land-revenue-act-declared-unconstitutional-hp-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/S.-163-A-HP-Land-Revenue-Act-unconstitutional.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-06T11:30:08+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-13T10:06:40+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Himachal Pradesh High Court declared Section 163-A of H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 as unconstitutional, calling it a legislation for class of dishonest persons.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/s-163a-hp-land-revenue-act-declared-unconstitutional-hp-hc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/s-163a-hp-land-revenue-act-declared-unconstitutional-hp-hc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/s-163a-hp-land-revenue-act-declared-unconstitutional-hp-hc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/S.-163-A-HP-Land-Revenue-Act-unconstitutional.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/S.-163-A-HP-Land-Revenue-Act-unconstitutional.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"S. 163-A HP Land Revenue Act unconstitutional\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/s-163a-hp-land-revenue-act-declared-unconstitutional-hp-hc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u2018The provision is a legislation for class of dishonest persons\u2019: Himachal Pradesh HC declares S. 163-A H.P. Land Revenue Act unconstitutional\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"HP HC declares S. 163-A H.P. Land Revenue Act unconstitutional | SCC Times","description":"Himachal Pradesh High Court declared Section 163-A of H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 as unconstitutional, calling it a legislation for class of dishonest persons.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/s-163a-hp-land-revenue-act-declared-unconstitutional-hp-hc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u2018The provision is a legislation for class of dishonest persons\u2019: Himachal Pradesh HC declares S. 163-A H.P. Land Revenue Act unconstitutional","og_description":"Himachal Pradesh High Court declared Section 163-A of H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 as unconstitutional, calling it a legislation for class of dishonest persons.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/s-163a-hp-land-revenue-act-declared-unconstitutional-hp-hc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-08-06T11:30:08+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-08-13T10:06:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/S.-163-A-HP-Land-Revenue-Act-unconstitutional.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u2018The provision is a legislation for class of dishonest persons\u2019: Himachal Pradesh HC declares S. 163-A H.P. Land Revenue Act unconstitutional","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/s-163a-hp-land-revenue-act-declared-unconstitutional-hp-hc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/s-163a-hp-land-revenue-act-declared-unconstitutional-hp-hc\/","name":"HP HC declares S. 163-A H.P. Land Revenue Act unconstitutional | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/s-163a-hp-land-revenue-act-declared-unconstitutional-hp-hc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/s-163a-hp-land-revenue-act-declared-unconstitutional-hp-hc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/S.-163-A-HP-Land-Revenue-Act-unconstitutional.webp","datePublished":"2025-08-06T11:30:08+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-13T10:06:40+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Himachal Pradesh High Court declared Section 163-A of H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 as unconstitutional, calling it a legislation for class of dishonest persons.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/s-163a-hp-land-revenue-act-declared-unconstitutional-hp-hc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/s-163a-hp-land-revenue-act-declared-unconstitutional-hp-hc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/s-163a-hp-land-revenue-act-declared-unconstitutional-hp-hc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/S.-163-A-HP-Land-Revenue-Act-unconstitutional.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/S.-163-A-HP-Land-Revenue-Act-unconstitutional.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"S. 163-A HP Land Revenue Act unconstitutional"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/06\/s-163a-hp-land-revenue-act-declared-unconstitutional-hp-hc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u2018The provision is a legislation for class of dishonest persons\u2019: Himachal Pradesh HC declares S. 163-A H.P. Land Revenue Act unconstitutional"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/S.-163-A-HP-Land-Revenue-Act-unconstitutional.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":364211,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/17\/sc-orders-status-quo-in-petition-on-validity-of-section163-a-hp-land-revenue-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":355864,"position":0},"title":"Constitutional Validity of S. 163-A H.P. Land Revenue Act| Supreme Court issues notice; Directs status quo vis-a-vis the suit property","author":"Sucheta","date":"October 17, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The petition by special leave challenged the decision of Himachal Pradesh High Court which had held that Section 163-A of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 was manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"S. 163-A H.P. Land Revenue Act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/S.-163-A-H.P.-Land-Revenue-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/S.-163-A-H.P.-Land-Revenue-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/S.-163-A-H.P.-Land-Revenue-Act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/S.-163-A-H.P.-Land-Revenue-Act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":269052,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/27\/writ-under-art-226-maintainable-for-grant-of-extension-of-parole-himachal-pradesh-high-court-dismissed-petition-under-s-482-crpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":355864,"position":1},"title":"Writ under Art 226 maintainable for grant of extension of parole; Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed petition under S. 482 CrPC","author":"Editor","date":"June 27, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Himachal Pradesh High Court: Vivek Singh Thakur, J. dismissed the petition filed under Sec 482 Criminal Procedure Code (\u2018CrPC') for extension of parole as the right remedy is under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The instant petition was filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking extension of term\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Himachal Pradesh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/himachal_pradesh_high_court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/himachal_pradesh_high_court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/himachal_pradesh_high_court-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/himachal_pradesh_high_court-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/himachal_pradesh_high_court-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":274114,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/21\/delh-land-reforms-act-1954-special-law-succession-in-hindu-succession-act-1956-will-not-prevail-supreme-court-legal-research-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":355864,"position":2},"title":"Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 a special law; Succession provided in Hindu Succession Act 1956 will not prevail over it: Supreme Court","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"September 21, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In a case where challenge was made to declare Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 unconstitutional being ultra vires Articles 14, 15, 254 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the bench of Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath*, JJ has held that all the legislations\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-77-1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-77-1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-77-1-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-77-1-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-77-1-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6625,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/04\/29\/forest-land-cannot-be-regularized-by-revenue-authorities\/","url_meta":{"origin":355864,"position":3},"title":"Forest Land cannot be regularized by Revenue Authorities","author":"Sucheta","date":"April 29, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh High Court:\u00a0In an appeal before this court filed by the plaintiff for declaration of permanent prohibitory injunction against the State Government from taking possession and in alternative for possession against the defendants of\u00a0'nautor land', a bench of Rajiv Sharma J, dismissed the appeal stating that the suit land\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "High Courts"","block_context":{"text":"High Courts","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/highcourts\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":295030,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/20\/every-female-male-employee-fundamental-right-maternity-paternity-leave-hp-hc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":355864,"position":4},"title":"Every Female and Male Employee whether appointed on regular basis, contractual basis, ad hoc basis, have Fundamental Right to Maternity and Paternity Leave: Himachal Pradesh HC","author":"Editor","date":"June 20, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court said that the object of maternity leave is to protect the dignity of motherhood by providing full and healthy maintenance to the woman and her child and maternity leave is intended to achieve the social justice to women.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"himachal pradesh high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":281532,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/12\/once-the-land-has-been-urbanized-proceedings-under-delhi-reforms-act-1954-would-not-be-maintainable-delhi-high-court-legal-research-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":355864,"position":5},"title":"Delhi High Court | Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 not applicable to the land which has been declared urbanised and had lost its agricultural character","author":"Editor","date":"January 12, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Delhi High Court held that the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 would not be applicable to the land which had lost its character as an agricultural land and was declared an urbanized land in view of the notifications passed by the Delhi Development Authority and Ministry of Urban Development.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/355864","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=355864"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/355864\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/355870"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=355864"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=355864"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=355864"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}