Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sunil Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.

Sunil Kumar and ors. vs State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Himachal Pradesh Decided Jun 02, 2011
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/919553

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CMPMO. 422 of 2004
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition
Acts & sections
The H.P. Holdings Act 1971 - Section 154

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sunil Kumar and ors.

Advocate Mr.Suneet Goel, Adv.

Respondent

State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.

Advocate Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur; Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advs.

Legal References

Acts
The H.P. Holdings Act 1971 - Section 154

Excerpt

1. the petitioners by means of this petition have challenged the order dated 18.9.2002 whereby the revision petition filed by them under section 154 of the h.p. holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1971, was dismissed. 2. the undisputed facts are that consolidation proceedings took place and in such consolidation proceedings a scheme was prepared. however, the petitioners and the respondents who were cosharers got their own land partitioned at the spot not in accordance with the scheme of consolidation but by respecting the possession of the parties. on 10.4.1985, this partition was effected in the presence of all the land owners and the same was effected at the spot. all the parties stated that they did not want to get the land demarcated and accordingly passed a resolution directing that their partition be recorded in the consolidation proceedings. 3. the case of the petitioners is that though such settlement was arrived at, possession was not actually delivered at the spot. the order passed in the year 1985 was challenged in the year 1996 before the director of consolidation who rejected the same on the ground that there is huge delay of 11 years in filing the petition. this order was passed in the year 2002 and two years later in the year 2004 the present petition was filed. 4. i have carefully gone through the record which shows that the agreement which was arrived at between the parties clearly reflected that the parties had partitioned the land at the spot by respecting each others possession. therefore, the question of handing over the possession did not arise. in fact the agreement indicates that nothing further was to be done. there is no explanation on behalf of the petitioners as to why they kept silent for 11 years thereafter. 5. in view of the above discussion, i find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. no costs.

Full Judgment

1. The petitioners by means of this petition have challenged the order dated 18.9.2002 whereby the Revision Petition filed by them under Section 154 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, was dismissed.

2. The undisputed facts are that consolidation proceedings took place and in such consolidation proceedings a scheme was prepared. However, the petitioners and the respondents who were cosharers got their own land partitioned at the spot not in accordance with the scheme of consolidation but by respecting the possession of the parties. On 10.4.1985, this partition was effected in the presence of all the land owners and the same was effected at the spot. All the parties stated that they did not want to get the land demarcated and accordingly passed a resolution directing that their partition be recorded in the consolidation proceedings.

3. The case of the petitioners is that though such settlement was arrived at, possession was not actually delivered at the spot. The order passed in the year 1985 was challenged in the year 1996 before the Director of Consolidation who rejected the same on the ground that there is huge delay of 11 years in filing the petition. This order was passed in the year 2002 and two years later in the year 2004 the present petition was filed.

4. I have carefully gone through the record which shows that the agreement which was arrived at between the parties clearly reflected that the parties had partitioned the land at the spot by respecting each others possession. Therefore, the question of handing over the possession did not arise. In fact the agreement indicates that nothing further was to be done. There is no explanation on behalf of the petitioners as to why they kept silent for 11 years thereafter.

5. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial