Himachal Pradesh Court July 1971 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.
Piyare Lal and anr. Vs. Shankar Dass and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ185
ORDERM.H. Beg, C.J.1. There are two revision applications before me. One is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Mahasu In a case in which the opposite party was convicted by a Magistrate under Section 337 I. P. C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. The other revision application is directed against an order of the District Magistrate dismissing the complaint of Lumbru, the applicant, against Shankar Dass and his wife Ludri for alleged offences punishable under Sections 307 and 307/114 I. P. C. and also for action under Section 403(4) of Cr. P. C. Both the revision applications arise out of a common set of facts relating to the same incident described below together with the findings of fact arrived at about it.2. It appears that on 24-7-1968, at about 11 A. M., when Paerey Lal. the son of the applicant Lumbru, was ploughing in his father's field, together with his cousin Maulu, a few feet ahead a gun shot was heard from the direction o...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Rana Himal Chand
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-28-1971
Reported in: AIR1971HP20
D.B. Lal, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal and has been directed against the decision dated 5th March, 1968 of the District Judge, Kangra, whereby, after confirming the decision of the Senior Sub-Judge, Kangra, he has decreed the suit of the plaintiff Rana Himal Chand for declaration to the effect that he is in cultivatory possession as owner of disputed land situate in Tikas Gankhetar and Kasba of mauza Baijnath in the tehshil of Palampur.2. The plaintiff came to Court with the allegations, that the disputed Khasra numbers situate in the respective Tikas were allotted to him by the Custodian in, lieu of certain land which belonged to him and which he had to leave in Pakistan. The quasi-allotment was made on 14-8-49 while permanent allotment was made on 18-2-57. The plaintiff came in actual possession and started cultivating the disputed land. However, in the revenue papers the entry, 'Gair Mumkin Abadi' was made which, according to the plaintiff, was a wrong entry. Subsequently ...
Todar Singh Vs. Jogeshwar and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-20-1971
Reported in: AIR1972HP7
Chet Ram Thakur, J.1. Major Todar Singh, defendant, feeling aggrieved against the dismissal of his appeal by the District Judge. Gurdaspur and Ex-Officer Additional District Judge. Hoshiarpur. Camp at Dharamsala affirming the judgment and decree of the Senior Sub Judge, Kangra, dated 6-2-1959, had filed the second appeal in the Punjab High Court in 1960. After reorganisation of the State of Punjab, the case was transferred to the Court of Judicial Commissioner. Himachal Pradesh and from there it was transferred to Delhi High Court and now it has come to this Court.2. The facts of the case are that land Khasra No. 1175 min measuring 45 kanals situate in Tika and Mauza Kosri, Tehsil Palampur was recorded as shamilat Tika Kosri. Shri Jogeshwar and Shri Birbal, plaintiffs, who are also the proprietors in the villages, instituted a suit in respect of this land on 18-2-1958 in the Court of the Senior Sub Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala, for joint possession of the land with all the other proprie...
Budhi Singh Vs. Sewa Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-1971
Reported in: AIR1971HP29
1. These are two defendant's second appeals directed against the judgment and decrees of the District Judge of Chamba, who disposed of two appeals by the same judgment as common questions of law and fact arose. The plaintiffs-respondents are transferees of the rights of the Central Government in evacuee property which had vested absolutely in the Central Government, free from all encumbrances, under the provisions of Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. They came to Court with a claim of absolute ownership of the plots of land in dispute based upon a permanent allotment to which the provisions of Rule 58 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, applied. This rule lays down:--'Where any person is allotted agricultural land under these rules, he shall, subject to the provisions of any local or special law fixing the ceiling of or otherwise regulating agricultural holdings be granted vacant possession of such land....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›