Himachal Pradesh Court November 1983 Judgments

Nathu Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1984HP63

ORDERT.R. Handa, J.1. The petitioner's land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The award was announced on 31-7-1973. The compensation was paid to the petitioner on 26-8-1973 against receipt. Thereafter on 31-8-1973 the petitioner made a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act before the Collector requiring him to forward the same to the District Court for adjudication of the proper amount of compensation payable to him. The Collector vide his order dt. 2-1-1976 declined to forward that application to the District Court on the ground that the petitioner having received the amount of compensation without protest, the reference petition was not maintainable in law.2. The petitioner now seeks to challengethe aforesaid order dt. 2-f-I976 passed bythe Collector refusing to forward his reference petition under Section 18 of the Act to theCourt for adjudication. The petitioner claimsthat the aforesaid order dt. 2-1-1976 waspassed in his abs...

Thoilu Vs. Krishan Gopal and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1984HP58

T.R. Handa, J.1. 'Whether a stepson can claim a right of pre-emption under Section 15(1)(a), Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (as amended up to date), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' in respect of sale of self-acquired agricultural land effected by his stepmother' is the short and sole question which falls for consideration in this regular second appeal filed at the instance of the plaintiff whose claim to pre-empt such a sale has been negatived by both the Courts below.2. The plaintiff-appellant is the son of one Mahantu by his first wife. Mahantu performed his second marriage with one Jaiwanti. Smt. Jaiwanti owned some land as her self-acquired property in the sense that She had not inherited the same. She sold this land to the present respondents. The plaintiff-appellant thereupon filed his suit giving rise to this appeal to pre-empt that sale. He claimed his superior right of preemption of the solitary ground that he was the stepson of the vendor Smt. Jaiwanti.3. As stated earlier...

Himachal Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Kishan Singh and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1984HP40

V.P. Gupta, J. 1. This is a defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11-9-1978 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mandi, by which the plaintiffs' (respondents' suit for declaration and injunction was decreed and the judgment and decree dated 30-10-1975 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Mandi was set aside. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit on tine allegations that they were employees of the Himachal Government Transport, which is a commercial concern and is doing the business of running and operating road transport service. Prior to 18/19-9-1959 they were working in different capacities with Himachal Government Transport.They were absorbed in the service of Mandi Kulu Road Transport Corporation (defendant No. 2) on the formation of the said Corporation from 18/19-9-1959. Previously the transport services were operated by Himachal Government Transport and Mandi Kulu Valley Company, but in the year 1959 the routes along with the services were taken over by the aforesaid ...

Mathu Ram and anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

ORDERT.R. Handa, J.1. The District and Sessions Judge, Selan and Sirmur districts conducted the monthly inspection of the Model Central Jail, Nahan on 5-4-1983. He submitted a copy of his inspection note to this Court for its perusal and record. Para No. 5 of the inspection note which is relevant for the purposes of the present proceedings reads :-5. Mathu Ram alias Harbans Singh & Sita Ram:Both the convicts are placed under fetters. The Superintendent of Jail to explain under what circumstances the convicts have been placed under fetters. Both complain of discrimination by stating that Ishwari Prasad convict, who also ran away, has not been placed under fetters, The Assistant Superintendent of Jail has been directed to open the fetters of S/Shri Mathu Ram and Sita Ram convicts immediately with the direction to report compliance. The Assistant Superintendent of Jail, it may be observed, obeyed the order of the District & Sessions Judge forthwith and in his very presence.2. It appears t...

Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 1984CriLJ1056

ORDERT.R. Handa, J.1. The petitioner Shri Ramesh Chand was arrested on 2.6.1983 in connection with a case registered against him with police station Ghumarwin, district Bilaspur, under Sections 302/376 I.P.C. The petitioner had been remanded by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin to custody from time to time during the investigation of the sold case. Since the police did not file a charge-sheet against him within 90 days of the date of his arrest, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Ghumarwin ordered his release on bail on 2.9.1983. The said order was obviously passed in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. which provision mandates that no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused in custody under that section for a total period exceeding 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years.2. Before the petitioner could be actually released in pursuance of...