Shimla, Aug. 6 -- In a significant ruling, the high court on Tuesday declared Section 163-A of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954, which empowers the state government to frame rules for regularising encroachments on its land, unconstitutional. "Section 163-A of HP Land Revenue Act is manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional and as a consequence, rules framed thereunder are quashed," the division bench of justice Vivek Singh Thakur and justice Bipin Chander Negi ruled, disposing of a petition filed in 2002. In its order, the Bench observed that the impugned provision is a "legislation for a class of dishonest persons" which seeks to regularise all illegal encroachments, and thus, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It also directed the state to initiate eviction proceedings against all such encroachments and take such proceedings to its logical end as expeditiously as possible preferably on or before February 28, 2026. The extent of the problem can be gauged by the state's reply to the court in which it said there are 57,549 cases of encroachments on government land, covering about 10,320 hectares. Besides, the state has 1,67,339 applications seeking regularisation till August 15, 2002. Taking into account the magnitude of encroachments on government land, the high court directed the state government to consider an amendment in the law pertaining to "criminal trespass". Since July 4, 1983, the Himachal Pradesh government has issued various notifications, allowing regularisation of encroachments on government land. The policy at that time permitted regularisation of up to five bighas at a nominal fee of Rs.50 a bigha, for 5-10 bighas, a penalty of three times the market value was imposed, and for 10-20 bighas, a fine of 10 times the market value applied. Encroachments exceeding 20 bighas were subject to eviction. These guidelines were modified in 1984 and again in 1987, with the last setting August 30, 1982, as the cut-off date for regularisation of encroachments made since June 30, 1970. Section 163-A was introduced in 2002 during the first tenure of chief minister Prem Kumar Dhumal. It enabled the government to frame rules for regularising encroachments with the stated aim of helping small and marginal farmers. But the high court on Tuesday ruled that the provision violated 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. Equality cannot be claimed in illegality," the bench stated in its judgment. The HC clarified that any stay granted against the removal of encroachment shall stand vacated. The state also directed to make suitable changes in the law by amending the relevant Act and rules appropriately to assign the duty on office-bearers of the concerned nagar panchayat, nagar parishad and nagar nigam as well as executive officer(s)/commissioner(s) to report the encroachment, to take action for its removal and regarding consequences of violation of such duty. The HC directed the advocate general to transmit the copy of the judgment to the state chief secretary and all concerned for immediate compliance, with directions to take appropriate action against the revenue authorities in whose jurisdiction land has been permitted to be encroached upon. The order comes close on heels of the directives of the HC on July 2 to cut down apple trees planted on forest land. The Himachal government had begun acting on this directive, but former Shimla deputy mayor and environmentalist Tikender Singh Panwar filed a petition in the Supreme Court, requesting a stay on the felling of the trees. The Supreme Court has granted a stay in the matter and directed the state government that while illegal encroachments may be removed, cutting down green trees is prohibited. Advocate General, Anup Kumar Rattan, said, " The amendment brought in 2002 was intended to help small and marginal farmers who had limited land holdings. The government had hoped to provide additional land to such farmers, check the growing number of encroachments, and generate revenue for the state". HC has now declared this Amendment unconstitutional. A total of 1.67 lakh applications had been received by the government seeking regularisation of encroached land." He said, "The judgment is being studied and a copy of the order has been sent to the chief secretary. Further action will be discussed at the government level after internal deliberations." Convener of the Apple Federation of India and former MLA Rakesh Singha termed the judgment as "bad in law". "The ultimate sufferer is the poor farmer and by February 2026 more than 2.50 lakh evictions will take place across the state. It is unreasonable, inhumanitarian and against the basic tenets of the society," he said. "The BJP needs to apologise to 1.67 lakh people of the state who attempted to get the land regularised under 163A. Not just BJP, all those who were associated in giving legal opinion and who consented to hoodwink the poor farmers should apologise. BJP was in power and defended the enactment while Congress had vehemently opposed it," said Singha. BJP leader Sukhram Chaudhary said, "BJP brought in Section 163-A to provide land to the poor and marginal centres. But cases are not being represented properly by the present government and undue affidavits are being filed in the court due to which such judgements are coming into force. Earlier too, the state government had given an affidavit that the state government is unable to take care of apple trees; thus due to the language, the high court had ordered the cutting of fruit laden trees. Similarly the government in this case too did not take up the case with the will to win. Owing to mismanagement of present state government Nautod has not been finalised thus depriving the poor farmers of land to cultivate"....