The Himachal Pradesh High Court has once again confirmed a key legal position: an individual found to have encroached on government land cannot seek a prohibitory injunction against the rightful owner. This decision came as the Court dismissed a review petition in the case of Subhash Chander Mahendra (since deceased) through his LRs vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a review of its earlier judgment dated November 4, 2023, claiming there was a clear error in the findings. The original case involved a dispute over land that the petitioner claimed to have purchased in 1973–74. He argued that the State had never denied this claim and that this amounted to an admission under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act.
However, the High Court observed that no sale deed was submitted to prove the extent of the land allegedly purchased. The Court clarified that mere entries in the revenue record or partial admissions do not establish legal ownership.
“An admission by itself cannot confer title to a property,” the Court quoted from the Kerala High Court judgment in Mani v. Madhavi.
The petitioner's claims had earlier been rejected at multiple stages. The trial court upheld an order by the Settlement Officer who had ruled the land was part of the State’s holdings and found the petitioner to be in illegal possession. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal, though the High Court had earlier clarified the suit was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Even then, it held that remanding the case would not change the outcome since the petitioner lacked legal title.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Declines Fresh Petitions Against Waqf Amendment Act, Allows Intervention in Ongoing Case
In the review petition, it was contended that the High Court had relied on legal precedents not cited by either party. This argument too was dismissed.
“The Court is not precluded from relying upon the correct law even if it has not been cited by either party,” the judgment stated.
The petitioner also claimed that the Appellate Court had not addressed the merits of the case, but the High Court confirmed that findings had indeed been recorded in detail and the order of the Trial Court was supported by evidence.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Says Owning Spyware Not Illegal; Real Question is Who It's Used Against in Pegasus Case
Moreover, the Court rejected the plea that the lack of evidence from the State side should have automatically led to a favorable decree for the petitioner.
“The plaintiff must stand on their own case; the absence of a defendant’s evidence does not grant automatic relief,” the judgment emphasized.
Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner (2004), the Court reinforced the principle that a person in possession—if proven to be an encroacher—cannot legally seek an injunction against the true owner.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Denies Bail to Ex-IPS Officer Sanjiv Bhatt in 1990 Custodial Death Case
Lastly, the High Court took serious note of the fact that the review petition was filed through a counsel who was not involved in the earlier proceedings and had not obtained the necessary consent. It stressed that a review cannot become a second round of litigation disguised as a fresh hearing.
Case: Subhash Chand Mehendra (since deceased) through his LRs v/s State of H.P & Another
Case No: Review Petition No.11 of 2024
Date of Decision: 24.04.2025
For the petitioners: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate,
For the Respondents/State: Mr. Lokender Kutlehria,
Additional Advocate General.
