Civic Body Cannot Label Occupant As Trespasser After Seeking Voluntary Vacation On Promise Of Re-Allotment: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a Municipal Corporation can't raise the issue of trespassing by a former occupant, after it had sought vacation of the premises on the promise of re-allotment.Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The respondent–Corporation which got the premises vacated from the petitioner on the promise of the petitioner being put back in possession… cannot now be allowed to raise the issue of the petitioner being in unauthorized possession or having trespassed over the property of the State in these proceedings.”The petitioner, Ram Lal Sharma, had been running a medicine shop and blood testing laboratory in Shimla for over six decades. However, his shop was part of stalls owned by the Municipal Corporation.Under the Smart City mission, the Municipal Corporation decided to demolish the old structure to construct a modern complex. It assured the occupants that they would be allotted shops of equivalent size after reconstruction.The petitioner approached the High Court on the ground that he was alloted a shop which was much smaller than the earlier area he occupied, and it became difficult for him to continue his business of pharmacy and lab testing. In response, the municipal corporation contended that it did not have any obligation to allot a larger shop to the petitioner as he was not a lessee but a trespasser. It further submitted that the shop was originally leased to someone else and was later unauthorisedly subletted to the petitioner. The lease was cancelled the same year, yet the petitioner continued occupation and even illegally extended the area. The Court clarified that they are not deciding the legal status or ownership of the petitioner over the premises. It stated that the petition is confined to a narrow issue of whether the petitioner was entitled to be restored to the same area after reconstruction or not. The Court remarked that even if the petitioner's occupation had been unauthorized, the corporation's conduct in seeking voluntary vacation for reconstruction created an obligation. The petitioner had vacated the premises not under eviction, but on assurance that he would be reinstated in a shop of the same size after reconstruction. Thus, the Court rejected the Corporation's contention of raising the issue of illegality, holding that the Corporation had itself sought vacation on the promise of re-allotment.Case Name: Sh. Ram Lal Sharma v/s State of H.P. and anotherCase No.: CWP No. 9002 of 2024Date of Decision: 31.10.2025For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate.For the Respondent: Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1.Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.2.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Civic Body Cannot Label Occupant As Trespasser After Seeking Voluntary Vacation On Promise Of Re-Allotment: HP High Court

Mehak Aggarwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehak Aggarwal

Civic Body Cannot Label Occupant As Trespasser After Seeking Voluntary Vacation On Promise Of Re-Allotment: HP High Court

Mehak Aggarwal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehak Aggarwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers