Himachal Pradesh Court January 1973 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.
Shri Ram Kishore and anr. Vs. State
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-18-1973
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1527
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This rule in revision has been obtained in a case under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nahan. The facts of the case are, that the petitioners Ram Kishore and Jai Kishore claim ownership for khasra No. 942 which is an open piece of land situate in Chhota Chowk, within the town of Nahan. On one side of this land which is a Chabutra, there is a Haveli which at one stage belonged to Lala Bansi Lal who constructed a temple on the Chabutra for the use of the public. The three sides of Chabutra were left open for the public to traverse as they used to go to perform Puja etc. within the temple; on the occasion of Gugga Naumi, the members of the public assemble on this Chabutra and celebrate the festival for a period of 8 or 9 days and that is an annual function. Lala Bansi Lai fell in debts and the disputed property was purchased by the bank in public auction and the ancestors of the petitioners re-purchased the pro...
AmIn Chand Vs. State of H.P. and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1973
Reported in: AIR1974HP18
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. The question before us is wihether on a petition for review of a judgment disposing of a writ petition the Court-fee is payable under Article 4 of the First Schedule or under Article 1 (d) (iv) of the Second Schedule of the Himachal Pradesh Court Fees Act. 1968. Article 4 of the First Schedule reads:See for 1st Sch. below. Article 1(d) (iv) of the Second Schedule reads: See for 2nd Sch. below. NumberProper fee123'4. Application for review of judgment ifpresented before the ninetieth day from the date of the decree.One half of the fee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal.'Article 1 (d) (iv) ofthe Second Schedule reads ;'1. Application for petition.(d) When presented to the HighCourt- (i) .........(ii) .............(iii) Under Art. 226 ofthe Constitution of India other than petitions for habeas corpus and petitions arising out of criminalproceedings;Fifty rupees Two rupees sixty-five paise.'(iv) in all other cases.2. The Schedules specify the Court fee payab...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. C. Baljee and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1973
Reported in: AIR1974HP1
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. The Union of India is aggrieved by an order of the District Judge, Simla. as Appellate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, quashing an order of the Estate Officer for eviction of the respondent, Shri C. Baljee.2. The Grand Hotel. Simla, belongs to the Government of India. On April 15, 1965. the Government executed a lease in favour of Messrs Bailee in respect of a portion of the Grand Hotel for three years ending April 14. 1968 on an annual rent of Rs. 49,812/- payable monthly. There was a clause in the lease that it could be renewed at the option of the Government upon the expiry of the period of three years. On January 9/12, 1968 the Government of India wrote to the lessee that it had decided not to renew the lease and that, therefore, vacant possession should be handed over upon its expiry. The lessee served a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the Central Government protesting against the direc...
State Vs. Sadh Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-17-1973
Reported in: AIR1973HP76
D.B. Lal, J.1. This first appeal has been brought by defendant the Union of India from the judgment dated 30thJune, 1970 of the Senior Sub-Judge. Mahasu, wherein the suit of the plaintiffs Sadh Bam and four others for a declaration as to their right of ownership for trees growing over 92.4 bigha area comprising in six Khasra numbers, situate in village Deha, Pargana Shilla, Tehsil Theog. is decreed.2. The plaintiffs' case before the learned Senior Sub-Judge was. that they were tenants of the disputed land of which the proprietary rights had vested in the State Government under Section 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act. 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as the Abolition Act. 1953). Under Sub-section (4) of Section 27. the right, title and interest of the land-owner, namely, the State Government, were to be transferred to the tenants who cultivated the land. The plaintiffs claim to be such tenants and therefore applied to the Compensation Offi...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›