Court’s Decision
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that occupants of forest land or government land prior to the cut-off date fixed under previous policies (notably the 2002 policy) are entitled to regularisation of their possession without payment of premium. The Court quashed the impugned order requiring the petitioners to pay a premium for regularisation and reaffirmed that the policy applicable to the petitioners was the one in force at the relevant time. The Court clarified:
“Once the policy applicable in the year 2002 did not require premium, subsequent policy of 2008 or 2011 cannot be made applicable to the petitioners…”
Facts
The petitioners were in possession of government land and had raised construction over it prior to the year 2002. In view of the prevailing 2002 government policy, their occupation was to be regularised without payment of premium. However, the authorities issued demand notices requiring them to pay a substantial amount as premium under later policies issued in 2008 and 2011. Aggrieved by this action, the petitioners challenged the demand as arbitrary and violative of legitimate expectations based on the earlier policy.
Issues
- Whether the petitioners’ possession of government land prior to 2002 could be regularised under the 2002 policy without the payment of premium?
- Whether subsequent policies requiring premium for regularisation could be applied retrospectively to the petitioners?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners contended that they had raised construction prior to the year 2002 and were entitled to benefit under the policy of 2002 which did not stipulate payment of premium for regularisation. They argued that their rights crystallised under the 2002 policy and could not be altered by later policies of 2008 or 2011. The action of the State in issuing premium demands was arbitrary, violated principles of legitimate expectation, and amounted to retrospective application of a burdensome policy.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State defended the demand for premium on the ground that the later policies governing regularisation required payment of premium and that such policies were uniformly applicable to all occupants of government land, including the petitioners. The respondents justified their action as being consistent with prevailing legal and administrative requirements.
Analysis of the Law
The Court scrutinised the various policies issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh for regularisation of encroachments on government and forest land. The 2002 policy did not require any premium for regularisation if the occupation existed prior to the cut-off date. However, later policies introduced in 2008 and 2011 prescribed payment of premium. The Court noted that these later policies could not retrospectively apply to individuals whose rights had already crystallised under the 2002 scheme.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on the legal principle that the law or policy applicable at the time of accrual of rights governs the matter. Referring to settled jurisprudence, the Court observed that retrospective application of a burdensome policy violates the doctrine of legitimate expectation. No specific precedents were cited in this order, but the doctrine applied is consistent with the broader administrative law jurisprudence established by the Supreme Court.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the petitioners were in possession prior to the cut-off date fixed by the 2002 policy and were, therefore, governed by it. The State’s attempt to impose premium under later policies was unjust and unsustainable. The Court observed:
“The order passed by the respondents requiring the petitioners to pay premium for regularisation is in violation of their rights accrued under the earlier policy. Such retrospective application of the policy of 2008 or 2011 is impermissible.”
The Court further clarified that the respondents cannot compel payment of premium when no such requirement existed under the applicable policy.
Conclusion
The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned demand notices issued to the petitioners, and directed the authorities to regularise the possession of the petitioners under the 2002 policy without charging any premium. It reiterated that administrative fairness and non-arbitrariness must guide the State while dealing with its citizens.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the legal principle that once a policy confers certain benefits or rights on individuals, those rights cannot be diluted by subsequent policies applied retrospectively. It strengthens the doctrine of legitimate expectation and upholds citizens’ rights against arbitrary demands by the State. The ruling will impact similar cases involving regularisation of forest/government land and curb unjust financial impositions based on later policy changes.
Judgments Referred and Their Relevance
While the judgment did not explicitly cite case laws, it relied heavily on the principles of administrative fairness and the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which have been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court in decisions like Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation and State of Bihar v. Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak Sangh—both of which highlight the impermissibility of altering accrued rights without clear legislative or policy intent.
FAQs
1. Can the government apply a new policy to demand payment retrospectively from occupants of government land?
No, the High Court ruled that the State cannot retrospectively apply a new policy that imposes premium when the earlier policy under which the occupants became eligible did not require such payment.
2. What is the relevance of the 2002 policy in regularisation cases in Himachal Pradesh?
The 2002 policy was pivotal because it allowed for regularisation of pre-2002 encroachments without any premium. This policy created vested rights for those who occupied the land before the cut-off date.
3. What legal principle protects individuals from sudden imposition of premium under a new policy?
The doctrine of legitimate expectation and the principle that vested rights under a previous policy cannot be taken away without due process protect individuals from such retrospective burdens.
