Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978HP51
T.U. Mehta, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Mandi Camp at Dharamsala in a land reference No. 50 of 1971 made to him under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. By his order under appeal the learned Additional District Judge has apportioned the compensation for acquisition of the land in dispute between the present appellant and the respondent on the basis that the respondent is a non-occupancy tenant over the acquired land. The appellant claims that the respondent is not holding any non-occupancy tenancy right in the land and the whole of the compensation should have been awarded to him without any apportionment. The office took objection as regard the court-fee paid by the appellant in this appeal. The appellant has paid Court-fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 13 (hi) of the Second Schedule attached to the Hima-chal Pradesh Court Fees Act, 8 of 1958. The office objection is that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : [2000]118STC315(HP)
D. Raju, C.J.1. These two writ petitions are dealt with together since they arise not only on identical issues, but are between the same parties and submissions have also been made by the learned counsel appearing on either side in common.C.W.P.No. 51 of 1999 :2. The above writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-company seeking for the issue of following reliefs :(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and/or setting aside the orders of the revisional authority dated February 8, 1999 for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 annexed hereto as annexure XXXII ;(b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the petitioner-company is entitled to full exemption from payment of Central sales tax as well as Himachal Pradesh general sales tax under the exemption notification dated January 30, 1996 for a period of nine years from the date of its commercial production, namely, September 26, 1995 ;(c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1992HP34
Devinder Gupta, J.1. This judgment will dispose of five regular second appeals filed by the defendant-appellant-Society against the judgment and decree passed on March 23, 1981 by the District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahavi Soiti Districts at Kullu dismissing its appeals and there by confirming the judgment and decree passed on May 31, 1980 by Sub-Judge 1st Class, Kullu decreeing the respective civil suits of plaintiff-respondents.2. Plaintiff-respondent in each of the appeals filed a separate suit against defendant-appellant for grant of a decree for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the land, particulars of which were given in the heading and in para 2 of each of the plaint, the District Welfare Officer, Kullu, got a deed of sale executed in respect of the suit land in favour of the appellant-Society which was a fictitious and bogus Society and as per the condition in the deed of sale, part of the sale consideration was to be paid subsequently which was not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1999HP87
Kamlesh Sharma, J.1. This writ petition was filed on 30-4-1991 by impleading State of Himachal Pradesh, The Notified Area Committee, Manali and the Director, Town and Country Planning as party respondents, and M/s. Sagar Tourist Resorts Pvt. Ltd. was added as respondent No. 4 vide order dated 21-5-1991 on their Caveat Application No. 425 of 1991. On the application of respondent No. 3 its name was deleted from the array of the respondents and Kullu Development Authority was substituted in its place by order dated 24-11-1992 passed in CMP No. 1560/1992. As stated in the said application, in supersession of all earlier notifications under the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') three notifications dated 2-11-1991 were issued whereby all provisions of the Act came into force w.e.f. 2-11-1991 in Kullu Valley and in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the Act. Kullu Valley was designated as special area and under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2002CriLJ2592
ORDERKamlesh Sharma, J.1. These ten criminal revision petitions (Cr. Revisions No. 60 of 1999 and 68 to 76 of 1999) are being disposed of by a common judgment as these arise out of an identical order dated 6-4-1999, though passed separately in all these criminal cases by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Hamirpur, whereby the application under Section 321, Cr.P.C. of Assistant Public Prosecutor was allowed and consent of the Court was granted to withdraw from the prosecution of respondents 2 to 4 as a consequence whereof respondents 2 to 4 were discharged in those criminal cases. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 6-4-1999 as it was on his complaint that FIR No. 137 of 1996 was registered in Police Station, Hamirpur out of which the said criminal cases had arisen. The petitioner is also a former Vice President of Gasota Agricultural Cooperative Society Gasota. Tehsil and District Hamirpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society').2. The brief facts of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1985HP64
ORDERP.D. Desai, J.1. The petitioner was elected as a member of the Municipal Committee, Chamba in 1967. One Miss Padma Vati, daughter of Mr. Amar Nath, submitted an application to the competent authority for the grant of eligibility certificate in 1968. A representation was made in the said application that Miss Padma Vati had resided in Mohalla Kashmiri, Chamba for more than 3 years prior to the date of the application. The aforesaid averment made in the application was verified to be correct by the petitioner. On the basis of the said application, duly verified by the petitioner, Miss Padma Vati was granted eligibility certificate by the Executive Magistrate, Chamba on March 15, 1969.2. It appears that an enquiry came to be made subsequently into the circumstances leading to the grant of eligibility certificate to Miss Padma Vati during the course of which it transpired that she had passed the matriculation examination and the J.B.T. examination from Jullundur in 1967 and 1968 respe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1990CriLJ723
V.P. Bhatnagar, J.1. (On behalf of Bhawani Singh, J. and himself).'What is the effect of Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vis-a-vis the provisioris of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958? Is Section 360 inapplicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh as the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 has been brought into force?'are the questions referred by a Division Bench of this Court to a larger Bench for determination. We propose to answer these questions by this judgment.2. The question as framed per se indicates that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') apply to the entire area comprised in the State of Himachal Pradesh. This is not disputed.3. That the analogous provisions pertaining to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition contained in Section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (for short, 'the 1898 Code') stood superseded by those contained in the Act is also beyond the pale ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2000HP113
R.L. Khurana, J.1. The respondent, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, a resident of village Rohla, Pargana Bathri. Tehsil Bhatiyat of District Chamba, on 27-3-1989 while going to her cattle-shed for the purpose of feeding her cows, was attacked by a black bear as a result of which she sustained the following injuries :--(i) Loss of complete eye sight (left eye);(ii) Compound fracture of left mandible;(iii) Fracture of nasal bone;(iv) Fracture of right frontal bone, frontal sinus, maxillary sinus with very severe facial disfigurement;(v) Facture both bones left forearm.2. Consequent upon such Injuries, her permanent disability was assessed at 100% by the medical authorities vide certificate Ex. PW3/A. Under the scheme formulated by the State Government vide notification dated 25-2-1988 (Copy Ex. DB) a relief of Rs. 5,000/- was granted to the plaintiff.3. The plaintiff on 9-12-1991 filed a suit. as an indigent person, for the recovery of damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2002CriLJ531
ORDERM.R. Verma, J. 1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 4-9-2000 whereby a charge has been ordered to be framed against the petitioner and others under Sections 452, 354 and 506, I.P.C. and has been framed on the same day.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is an army personnel, therefore, it was mandatory for the trial Court to comply with the provisions of Section 475 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter referred to as 'the Code') but despite his request and informing the trial Court the said provisions and the relevant rules were not complied with and no written notice was given to his Commanding Officer to exercise the option for the trial of the petitioner for the said offences by the Court-martial.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondent -- State and have also gone through the material on record.4. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a mili...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1965HP25,1965CriLJ550
ORDEROm Parkash, J.C.1. The facts, giving rise to this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, are as under :2. Shri Het Ram, respondent No. 5, Sarpanch, Nyaya Panchayat, Himri, Sub-Tehsil Kotkhai and other Panches, constituting Bench No. 1 of the Nyaya Panchayat, had gone to village Rewag for demarcating the land of Shri Moti Ram. The land of the petitioners adjoined the land of Shri Moti Ram. The petitioners were alleged to have interrupted the proceedings, relating to the demarcation of land and also to have Insulted the members of Bench No. 1. Shri Het Ram, Sarpanch, filed a complaint under Section 228 I. P. C., against the petitioners, In the Nyaya Panchayat, about the alleged contempt. He also issued notices to the petitioners and constituted Bench No. 3, of the Nyaya Panchayat, consisting of respondents Nos. 2 to 4, for the trial of the complaint. The petitionerswere proceeded against ex parte as they did not appear despite service of summonses. The co...
Tag this Judgment!