Himachal Pradesh Court July 1961 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rajkumar Rajindra Singh Vs. H.P. Administration and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1964HP19
C.B. Capoor, J.C.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Rajkumar Rajindra Singh against Himachal Pradesh Administration through the Secretary (Forests) and Chief Conservator of Forests and Chaudhary Gopal Singh and Co., the Forest Contractors. The petition arises in the following circumstances:The petitioner is the second son of late Raja Padam Singh the then ruler of Bushahar State hereinafter referred to as the Raja. By his order dated 14-9-1999 B. corresponding to 28th of November, 1942 A.D. the Raja made a gift in favour of the petitioner and his mother Rani Sahiba of Katochar of land comprised in Khatas Nos. 1 and 2, Khatauni Nos. 1 to 25 consisting of 106 plots situate in Chak Adu, Tehsil Rampur, now in Mahasu District, and got mutation effected and sanctioned in pursuance of the aforesaid gift. The gifted land inter alia included Khasra Nos. 606, 222, 34 and 341 and it is in respect of those 4 plots that controversy centres in the insta...
Sant and anr. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-04-1961
Reported in: AIR1962HP1
ORDERC.B. Capoor, J.C. 1. This reference and Criminal Reference No. 4 of 1961 can conveniently be dealt with together as common questions of law arise in both of them. 2. Sant Ram and Munshi Ram, the petitioners, were separately prosecuted for an offence under Section 447. I. P. C., for having trespassed upon land belonging to Government. When the petitioners appeared before the Court and the accusations were put to them they entered a plea of guilty and also undertook to give up possession. The learned Magistrate by judgments which have rightly been characterized by the learned Sessions Judge to be sketchy convicted the petitioners and sentenced petitioner Sant to pay a fine of Rs. 40/- and the other petitioner to a fine of Rs. 50/- and ordered the land trespassed upon to be restored to the respondent. 3. Applications in revision were filed before the learned Sessions Judge and in the main two points were raised. Firstly, that the petitioners could not have been convicted of the offen...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›