Farmers Demand Justice: Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment Highlights Unlawful Evictions in Himachal Pradesh

On behalf of the Himachal Kisan Sabha and the Himachal Seb Utpadak Sangh, we stand united in presenting the case of the farmers who have faced illegal evictions from their land, a matter that has persisted since the enactment of Section 163A of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act in 2000. This issue gained fresh attention after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Civil Appeal No. 13362 of 2024, titled Babu Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ANR, delivered on November 28, 2024, by Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra. The court’s judgment has been hailed as a victory for natural justice, as it unequivocally declared the evictions unlawful.

A Landmark Decision: Breach of Natural Justice

The Hon’ble Supreme Court condemned the manner in which the evictions were carried out. In Para-XI of the judgment, the court noted that the Collector’s decision lacked a fair and comprehensive evaluation of the evidence. The court emphasized that “application of mind” was crucial, especially as the Collector was expected to act quasi-judicially. The failure to do so rendered the eviction orders invalid. In its analysis, the court stated that the eviction order, issued by the Collector-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forest, Rampur Bushahar, and the Divisional Commissioner, was not a “speaking order,” which is required for it to be considered valid.

Key Demands for the Restoration of Justice

Following this judgment, the farmers’ organizations have issued a set of demands aimed at addressing the wrongful evictions and protecting farmers’ rights:

1. Review of All Eviction Cases: All cases of eviction that have occurred since the amendment of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act 1954, which introduced Section 163A, must be reviewed. Farmers who were illegally evicted should have their lands returned to them. The eviction procedures, as outlined in the Land Revenue Act, must be strictly followed, and the summary provisions of the Public Premises Act should not be invoked in these matters.
2. Restoration of Status Quo: In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the government must restore the status quo that existed before the eviction. This would include reinstating the land and property status as it was on the date the writ petitions were filed in the High Court. The government should treat all similar evictions as invalid and initiate fresh eviction proceedings after ensuring the land is restored to its rightful state.
3. Title and Ownership Clarification: No eviction should be carried out without first determining the title of the land, which is fundamental in establishing ownership. The Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act 1954 should be the governing law for disputes over cultivable land, as it offers a more thorough approach compared to the Public Premises Act, which is a summary law.
4. Restoration of the Tabadla Policy: The farmers of Himachal Pradesh have suffered due to various natural calamities like floods, cloudbursts, earthquakes, and glacier movements, which have caused widespread damage to agricultural and horticultural land, houses, and other structures. The government must consider restoring the pre-1980 “Tabadla” (land transfer) policy, which existed before the Forest Conservation Act of 1980. This policy could offer much-needed relief to farmers affected by these disasters. The state government should urge the central government to amend the Forest Conservation Act to provide appropriate relief to those impacted.
5. Land Ceiling Act and Forest Land Disputes: Under the Land Ceiling Act, agriculture surplus land that was acquired and vested in the state government was later categorized as forest land following the enactment of the Forest Conservation Act in 1980. However, many former landowners have sold these lands, and in several cases, mutations have been executed. Evictions on such lands have been carried out, which should be reviewed. Farmers who possess these lands, either through purchase or mutation, should not face eviction, and the laws should be amended to reflect this reality.
6. Addressing Pre-1980 Land Allocations: For lands that were allotted to farmers prior to 1980 but could not be mutated before the enactment of the Forest Conservation Act, there needs to be a clear and fair process to prevent the eviction of these farmers. The government must take steps to ensure that such farmers are not dispossessed due to technicalities arising from historical legal frameworks.

The Way Forward

The Supreme Court’s judgment represents a turning point for farmers in Himachal Pradesh. It is a powerful reminder that justice must prevail in all administrative actions, particularly when it involves the livelihoods and well-being of farmers. The government must now take swift action to review past evictions, restore lands to farmers, and amend outdated laws that no longer serve the needs of the people.

The Himachal Kisan Sabha and the Himachal Seb Utpadak Sangh remain committed to fighting for the rights of farmers in the state and will continue to advocate for a just and fair resolution to these long-standing issues.