IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 63 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.5.2011 Suresh Kumar & Yash Pal Singh ….Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate. _________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) CMP No. 543 of 2011: For the reasons stated in the application the same is allowed and name of Shri Yash Pal Singh is permitted to be brought on record. CMPMO No. 63 of 2011 1. This petition is directed against the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed by Shri Suresh Kumar and upheld the order of eviction passed by the Collector – cum- DFO Dehra, Forest Division, Dehra for removal of encroachment. 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Range Officer, Dadasiba submitted a report that Shri Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Suram Chand had encroached upon Government land measuring 0.03.75 hectares and had raised a temple there upon. Suresh Kumar contested the petition and claimed that he was owner of the same by way of adverse possession and that the land had wrongly been shown belonging to the State of H.P. According to him villagers have been performing Puja in the temple. The learned Collector came to the conclusion that the construction had been raised in June 2006 and thereafter challan was filed. He, therefore, ordered the eviction of the respondent from the Government land. Appeal against the said order was filed before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, who dismissed the same. Hence the present petition. 3. The main ground taken in the petition is that the appeal did not lie to the Divisional Commissioner but lay to the District Judge. This argument is totally misconceived. No doubt under the Central Act an appeal against the order of the Collector lies to the District Judge but under the H.P.Public Premises and Land 3 (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 appeal lies to the Divisional Commissioner. 4. The next contention of Shri Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice was not proper as the grounds were not given therein. I am afraid that this contention has been made only to be rejected. In the notice it is clearly stated that Shri Suresh Kumar is in unauthorized occupation of Government land bearing Khasra No.1/1 measuring 0.03.75 hectares and further description of the land has also been given. Nothing more is required in the notice. The parties were aware about the dispute and the respondent had contested the suit on the ground that the temple had been constructed long time back and the members of the public were performing Puja there. These contentions were rejected by the authorities below. 5. The findings of fact cannot be interfered by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Courts below have come to a finding of fact that temple had been raised on Government land. Now, the petitioner sought an innovative method of trying to get out of the order and Shri Yash Pal Singh filed an application praying that as Pradhan of the Devi Dhar Temple 4 Committee he may be impleaded as a party. Whether the temple is being run by a Committee or by an individual since it is on the Government land, the members of the public running the temple are responsible to vacate the land. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 26th May, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge