Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-13-1994
Reported in : AIR1996HP38
D.P. Sood, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the relief of issuance of appropriate writ., direction or order, directing the respondents to:i) complete the on-going land revenue settlement operations as Second Revised Settlement strictly in accordance with the intent of the two notifications one pertaining to the special revision of the existing records of right under Section 33 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act, 1953 and the other for general assessment of land revenue under Section 53 of the said Act;ii) withdraw Instructions Nos. 2, 4 and Supplementary Instructions Nos. 2, 23 and 32 of the Compendium of Instructions, issued by the 4th respondent (Settlement Officer);iii) bring up-to-date at re-settlement the field map of the previous settlement without recourse to re-measurement and preparation of the record of rights including wazib-ul-arz etc. strictly in accordance with Instructions contained in Para 222 of the Settlement M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : May-09-1994
Reported in : AIR1995HP15
Bhawani Singh, J. 1. The petitionerhas challenged the constitutional validity of the Himachal Pradesh Kutlehar Forest (Acquisition of Management) Act, 1992 (hereafter shortly, 'the Management Acquisition Act' or 'this Act'), on numerous grounds being recorded in the latter part of this judgment. Before passing of this Act, the State Government issued Notification No. Rev. D(F)7-1/90, dated January 19, 1990, under Section 3 of the Punjab Resumption of Jagirs Article 1957 directing the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to take over management and possession of Kutlehar Jagir Forest from the petitioner with the assistance of the Collector. This Notification was assailed by the petitioner through Civil Writ Petition No. 42 of 1990 (Shri Mohinder Pal v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others). By orders of January 22, 1990 and June 26, 1990, operation of this Notification was stayed and the writ petition admitted for hearing. Since both the actions of the respondents relate to the same f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-11-1994
Reported in : 1994CriLJ2539
ORDERA.L. Vaidya, J.1. A criminal case vide F.I.R. No. 97 of 1993 under Section 379/34, I.P.C. for removal of the vehicle under reference from the possession of Suresh Kumar, respondent No. 2 was registered against the present petitioner, Krishan Lal and four other persons, named, S/Shri Onkar Chand, Vish-wanath, Surinder Kumar and Prem Chand in June, 1993 at Police Station, Bilaspur. The vehicle under reference was taken into possession during investigation by the police. The present petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 submitted separate applications under Section 457, Cr. P. C. for the release of that vehicle which happened to be a Maruti Van No. HPY-848.2. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, after hearing the parties, ordered the release of the vehicle in question in favour of Shri Suresh Kumar, if not required in any other case. That too on Suresh Kumar's furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. two lacs with one surety of the like amount undertaking to produce the vehic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-24-1994
Reported in : 1995CriLJ800
ORDERA.L. Vaidya, J.1. Shri Mahesh Arora, Manager (Project)-cum-Secretary, M/s. Auro Spinning Mills, Baddi-Nalagarh, a unit of Vardhman Spinning and General Mills Ltd., Ludhiana, the present respondent No. 2, submitted a complaint under Section 420 IPC against the present petitioner before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, on 28th January, 1993. The learned Magistrate on that very day ordered the complaint to be forwarded to the S.H.O. Police Station, Barotiwala, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for further action as per law. F.I.R. No. 23/93 dated 24th February, 1993 under Section 420 IPC at Police Station, Barotiwala, as such, was registered against the present petitioner on the basis of the accusations made in the complaint.2. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties the relevant accusations made against the present petitioner in the complaint which have been made the base of the F.I.R., referred to above, are essential to be t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-07-1994
Reported in : AIR1994HP167
A.L. Vaidya 1. The dispute between the parties pertained to the tenancy rights which they were claiming in the suit land measuring 3 Kanals 16 Marias bearing Khe-wat No. 134, Khatauni No. 300 and Khasra No. 14/4/2 situate in village Santokhgarh, Tehsil and Distt. Una. The present respondents, that is, Garibu deceased and Bal-krishan minor were the plaintiffs in the suit filed for declaration before the trial court. Their simple case had been that plaintiff No. 1, that is, Garibu and father of plaintiff No. 2 were in occupation of the suit land as tenants at Will on payment of rent for the last so many years and after the death of father of plaintfff No. 2 the plaintiffs have been in continuous possession of the suit land as tenant at Will. According to the plaintiffs, the present appellant Sh. Tulsa Singh was a clever person who connived with Patwari Halqua and got himself incorporated in the revenue record in Kharif 1976 as tenant at Will of the suit land without any right, title and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-04-1994
Reported in : AIR1995HP156
ORDER1. The petitioner Dr. K. C. Malhotra joined H. P. University since its very inception and had been posted as Dean of Sciences, Dean of Students Welfare and Dean of Studies. He as appointed as an acting vice Chancellor in the University of Himachal Pradesh on 18th January, 1986 and with effect from 1st March, 1986, he was appointed as Vice Chancellor for a period of five years as was then prescribed under the Himachal Pradesh University Act (hereinafter to be called as the Act). The Act was later on amended and the term of the office of the Vice Chancellor was reduced to three years. However, the petitioner continued to have renewal of the terms as Vice Chancellor and finally on 6th July, 1991, his terms of office of Vice Chancellor was renewed for a further period of three years vide order dated 6th~ July, 1991 (Annexure-PA). The petitioner's three years term was to expire in July, 1994 but in the meantime on 22nd September, 1993, a notification was issued by the respondent No. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-21-1994
Reported in : 1995CriLJ1151
ORDERLokeshwar Singh Panta, J. 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal P.C. 1973, Shri Avtar Singh Bhasin petitioner has assailed the order of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (I), Shimla dt. 12-4-1989 passed in case No. 38/2 of 1986, whereby the application moved by the State under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal P.C. for summoning some witnesses was rejected.2. The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner had made a report to the police on the basis of which First Information Report Ex. PW7/A was registered. The allegations of the prosecution are that property known as 'Garden House Jakhu' at Shimla was under the exclusive possession of Sardar Bal want Singh father of the petitioner and respondent No. 1. During his life-time Sardar Balwant Singh leased out the property in favour of the wife of the petitioner who is stated to be in employment at Delhi. The petitioner had taken two rooms alongwith kitchen, bath room and store for his own residential purpose. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-30-1994
Reported in : AIR1995HP48
A.L. Vaidya, J. 1. The plaintiff-respondent Sh. Narinder Singh originally filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 85,000/-against the present appellants which suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 30th June, 1969. The plaintiff assailed the said judgment and decree in an appeal before the Division Bench and the appeal was accepted vide judgment dated 7th July, 1971 and the suit was remanded back for retrial after addition of some issues.2. After remand the plaintiff preferred an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint which was allowed vide order dated 8th December, 1971 and on the basis of the amended pleadings, submitted by the parties; some additional issues were framed.3. The learned single Judge thereafter decreed the suit and the said decree has been assailed in the present appeal on various grounds.4. The case off the plaintiff, as put up in the amended plaint, had been that he was running a business after the name and style 'Narin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-08-1994
Reported in : 1995CriLJ2603
ORDERD.P. Sood, J.1. All these four Criminal Revision Petitions arise out of the same First Information Report No. 17 of 1990 registered at Police Station, Anti-Corruption Zone, Shimla. As such I proceed to decide them by a common order.2. The crucial point involved for determination in these revision petitions is:'Whether cognizance of the offence under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(New) corresponding to Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, could be taken by Special Judge, Shimla when sanction in relation to the prosecution of the petitioner had been refused by the competent authority?'3. As a corollary thereto another important question for the consideration of this Court arises in case Special Judge, Shimla is held to be empowered to take cognizance of the offence without sanction of the competent authority, could such a Court take cognizance of the offences committed by a public servant under Penal Code during the discharge of his official ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-11-1994
Reported in : 1994CriLJ3662
Bhawani Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, in Sessions trial No. 27-N/7 of 1991, dated 24-9-1992. The accused has been convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2000/ -, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The facts of the case may now be summarised.2. On 9-8-1991, deceased Lal Singh (hereafter 'the deceased') was sitting with Mohar Singh (PW 1) and Basti Ram (PW 2) in the courtyard of Basti Ram and Bishan Singh. At about 5 p.m., accused Mauji Ram (hereafter 'the accused') came there with a darat. While the deceased was in the process of lighting his beedi, the accused hit him with a darat on the neck. The deceased received cut injury in the neck, fell down and died. He was overpowered by Mohar Singh and Basti Ram. Darat was snatched from him and he was tied with a Pillar. Many People came there. Pradhan of the...
Tag this Judgment!