Himachal Pradesh Court January 1984 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.
Kaka Ram Vs. Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-12-1984
Reported in: AIR1985HP21
ORDER1. The petitioner claims to have become the owner of a piece or parcel of land situate at Chamha and numbered as Evacuee Property No. 116 (Chamba) under a deed of conveyance D/-20-11-1967, executed in hisfavour under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The deed of conveyance is annexed to the petition at Annexure-PB, Consequently, mutation entry No. 1210 was sanctioned on 27-4-1968. Respondents initiated proceedings for the review of mutation which ultimately was rejected by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Chamba, on 13-12-1977. Respondent 4 then initiated independent proceedings for the review of the mutation which terminated by an order D/- July 29. 1981 passed by the Deputy Commssioner, Chamba, granting permission to review the mutation and ordering review within a specified time limit (Annexure-PD/1). Against the said order the petitioner went in revision before the Divisional Commissioner and then to the Financial Commissi...
Tej Singh Nidharak Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-09-1984
Reported in: AIR1985HP69
P.D. Desai, C.J. 1. The petitioner is and has always been residing in the area which initially formed part of the Princely State of Mandi. He was an active participant in the Praja Mandal Movement carried on in the Mandi State since long time prior to its merger with the Union of India on May 1, 1948. It appears that on account of his involvement in the Praja Mandal Movement, he had earned the displeasure of the State administration.2. On or about July 21, 1947 (5.5.2004 Bk.), the then Home Minister of Mandi made a proposal for the detention of some persons and one amongst them was the petitioner. In the proposal, a copy whereof is produced at Annexure PB, the petitioner was described as a 'confirmed seditionist' who indulged in delivering speeches creating disaffection in the public mind and advocating blood bath and unlawful activities for attaining independence. The Home Minister observed that it was, at one stage, considered to prosecute the petitioner for his unlawful activities s...
Parkash Chand Anand, Mandi and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-04-1984
Reported in: AIR1984HP47
P.D. Desai, C.J. 1. The petitioners, whoare carrying on business of exhibiting films in theatres situate in towns of Mandi, Jogindernagar, Bilaspur and Dharamsala, have challenged herein certain provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Entertainments Duty (Amendment) Act, ]983 and the Himachal Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) (IIIrd Amendment) Rules, 1983. In the writ petition these statutory provisions, amongst others, have been challenged on diverse grounds. However, at the preliminary hearing of the petition the challenge was confined only to the following three grounds: (1) Section 2 of the Himachal Pradesh Entertainments Duty (Amendment) Act, 1983, which introduces Clause (aa) in Section 1 of the Himachal Pradesh Entertainments Duty Act, 1968, so as to define the term 'Video exhibition', is discriminatory and, therefore, ultra vires Article 14. (2) Rule 2 of the Himachal Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) (IIIrd Amendment) Rules, 1983, which introduces Clause (xiii) in Rule 2 of the Himachal Pra...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›