Himachal Pradesh Court June 1965 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.
Gopi and ors. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Government and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1966HP8
ORDEROm Parkash, J. 1. This is a petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The facts, giving rise to the petition, are as follows:2. There is a perennial water-source, known as Rukamani Kund, situated in village Ropaid, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. Kuhls, taken from this water-source, irrigate lands, situated in villages Bhajwani, Kallar, and Hirapur, Tehsil Ghumarwin and also run gharats in villages Bhajwani and Kallar. In the year 1955, the Public Works Department had chalked out a scheme, under the Five Years Plan, for the construction of a pucca kuhl from Rukamani Kund, to he known as Rukamani-Baroa-Kuhl, for providing irrigational facilities for the villages of Baroa, Hirapur and Bhajwani. In pursuance of the scheme, a pucca channel for the kuhl was constructed. But the water from the source, Rukamani-Kund, could not he let in the channel, as objections, against the flow of water into the channel were raised by persons whose gharats were run, from the water...
Mangat Ram Vs. the State
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-30-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ967
ORDEROm Parkash, J.C.1. This is a revision petition, against an order of the Magistrate, First Class, Theog, framing a charge, under Section 193, I.P.C. against the petitioner.2. The petitioner had appeared as a witness, in execution proceedings, pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Theog, against Rama Nand judgment-debtor. Rama Nand had put in an application, under Sections 476/479A, Criminal P.C. against the petitioner, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Theog. praying that a complaint, under Section 193, I.P.C. may be filed against the petitioner as he had intentionally given false evidence in the execution proceedings. The Subordinate Judge, after enquiry, dismissed the application of Rama Nand, holding that it was not expedient in the interests of justice that a complaint should be filed against the petitioner. Rama Nand went up in appeal to the learned District Judge, against the order of the Subordinate Judge, dismissing his application for lodging a complaint. The...
Dev Raj Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1966HP13
ORDEROm Parkash, J.1. This is a petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner was a Head Draftsman, in the scale of Rs. 200-300, in the Sutlej Valley Division, Karcham, Himachal Pradesh P. W. D. Disciplinary proceedings were started against the petitioner on two charges: (1) the petitioner had deliberately delayed the disposal of Work Orders Nos. 31328 to 31333, from 17-8-1960 to 27-10-1960, which fact reflected on his integrity, and (2) the petitioner had burnt the aforesaid Work Orders on 27-10-1960. 3. The statement of allegations, on which the above two charges were based, was to the following effect:-- The petitioner had received the Work Orders, on 17-8-1960, from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tapari, but did not put them to the Executive Engineer for necessary action. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Tapari, was pressing for the approval of the Work Orders. On 27-10-1960, the Executive Engineer had enquired of the petitioner about the whereabouts ...
Daya Ram Vs. Smt. Reshmu
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-02-1965
Reported in: AIR1966HP36
Om Parkash, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby an appeal, against the order of Compensation Officer. Bilaspur, was allowed. 2. Daya Ram appellant was proprietor of land, measuring 10 Bighas and 12 Bis was, comprised in Khasra Nos. 12 Min, 17, 19, 21 and 78, situated in village Mohur. Lala, husband of Shrimati Reshmu respondent, had applied, under Section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act) for acquisition of proprietary rights in the land on the allegation that he was a tenant of the land. Daya Ram appellant had opposed the application and had filed objections against the acquisition of proprietary rights by Lala. Daya Ram had denied that Lala was a tenant of the land. This plea was that by virtue of a compromise entered into between Lala and himself, on the 28th November. 1952, Shrimati Reshmu had become the tenant of the land. After th...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›