THE

INDIAN LAW REPORTS HIMACHAL SERIES, 2016

EDITOR

RAKESH KAINTHLA Director,

H.P. Judicial Academy, Shimla.

ASSISTANT EDITOR HANS RAJ

Joint Director, H.P. Judicial Academy,

Shimla.

August, 2016 Vol. XLVI (IV)

Pages: HC 1239 to 2393

Mode of Citation : I L R 2016 (IV) HP 1

Containing cases decided by the High Court of

Himachal Pradesh and by the Supreme Court of India

And

Acts, Rules and Notifications.

PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

, BY THE CONTROLLER, PRINTING AND STATIONERY DEPARTMENT, HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-5.

All Right Reserved

INDIAN LAW REPORTS

HIMACHAL SERIES

(August, 2016)

INDEX

1) Nominal Table i to x

2) Subject Index & cases cited 1 to 62

3) Reportable Judgments 1239 to 2393

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i

Nominal table

I L R 2016 (IV) HP 1

Sr. No. Title Whether judgment passed by single bench or division bench

Page

1 Akhtar Beg Vs. State of HP 1813

2 Amar Chand & ors. Vs. Shankar Verma

2328

3 Amar Singh and another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another

1445

4 Anand Sharma Vs. State of HP and others

D.B. 2331

5 Anil Bhardwaj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another

2231

6 Asha Chauhan Vs. Himachal Pradesh Bus Stand Management and Development Authority and others

D.B. 2336

7 Avtar Singh Vs. Sawarna Devi & others 1908

8 Bagga Ram Vs. Gurpal Singh and another 1817

9 Bala Ram Vs. Murli Chand and others 1561

10 Balak Ram and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others

1819

11 Balbir Thapa Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh D.B. 2109

12 Baldev Dutt Vs. Rajesh Sharma (since deceased) through LRs

1354

13 Balwant Singh Negi Vs. Deepak Sharma and others

1909

14 Bharat Singh and ors. Vs. Gian Chand and ors. 1567

15 Bhavak Parasher Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & anr.

1963

16 Bhubneshwar Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

1756

17 Bhutto Devi Vs. Trilok Singh and others 1633

18 Bipan Chand Sud & Others Vs. State of H.P. & Others

1317

ii

19 Birbal Vs. State of H.P. & Others 1252

20 Bishan Dass Vs. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, and Ors

2118

21 Bobi Sawant Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others

2009

22 Brig (Retd.) R.S.Verma Vs. Abhijit Rai 2129

23 Chaman Lal & another Vs. The State of H.P. & others

1968

24 Chaman Lal Bali Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another

D.B. 1450

25 Chander Kant Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2290

26 Chander Shakher Vs. Dharam Chand Shukla and others

1823

27 Chandervir Singh Negi Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others

2188

28 Chattar Singh Tomar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

D.B. 1827

29 Chewari Ram since deceased through LRs. Vs. State of HP & Others

1336

30 Col. Balraj Chand Katoch (retired) Vs. Vijay Chauhan and another

2139

31 Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla Vs. M/s Shivalik Hatcheries Pvt Ltd

D.B. 1712

32 Court on its own motion Vs. State of H.P. and others CWPIL No. 17 of 2014

D.B. 2339

33 Court on its own motion Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others CWPIL No.8480 of 2014

D.B. 2235

34 D.K. Aggarwal (Dead) through LRs Vs. Pankaj Sharma

2340

35 Singh and Another Vs. State of H.P. 2191

36 Dev Kumari (since deceased) through her LRs Bal Krishan & Others Vs. NHPC & Others

1239

37 Dev Raj and Anr. Vs. State of H.P. and Ors. 1914

38 Dev Raj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another

2296

39 Devinder Kumar Dhar Vs. State of H.P. and another

2194

iii

40 Dhani Ram (deceased) through his LRs Vs. Sunder Ram (deceased) through his LRs

1759

41 Dhani Ram son of Shri Chaudhary Ram Vs. Krishana Prasad

1971

42 Dharam Chand Shukla and another Vs. Ashok Kumar

1828

43 Dharam Pal Vs. Uttam Chand

1764

44 Dharmender Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

2237

45 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Puran Singh and others

1636

46 Diwan Chand & another Vs. Ghanaiya Lal alias Manohar Lal

2147

47 Dropti Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another

1829

48 Etihasik Dharohar (Talaab) Bachao Sanghrash Samiti, Kunihar Vs. State of H.P. & Others

D.B. 1835

49 Gian Chand Vs. State of H.P. and others 1765

50 H.P. University & Others Vs. Vandana Pathania & Others

1847

51 Hans Raj and anr. Vs. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. and ors.

1767

52 Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association & another Vs. State of H.P.

1485

53 Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban

Development Authority Vs. N/K Clerk Dharam Singh

2149

54 Himachal Pradesh University & others Vs. Bansi Ram Thakur

D.B. 1575

55 Hira Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others 1247

56 Indra Devi and others Vs. Baba Ram and others

1920

57 Jagdish alias Maru Vs. Inder Singh alias Dilbhag Singh & others

1499

58 Jai Prakash minor Vs. Santosh Devi and others 1407

59 Jai Prakash Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

D.B. 1384

iv

60 Jainem Vs. State of H.P. D.B. 1977

61 Jaisi Ram Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh 1544

62 Jarnail Singh Vs. Paramjeet Singh and Others D.B. 2153

63 Jaspreet Singh s/o Sh. T.S. Bakshi Vs. Dr. V.K. Rampal S/o Dr. K.N. Rampal

1504

64 Kamal Nain and others Vs. Rano Ram 2014

65 Kamla Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 1356

66 Kanta Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Ors. 1646

67 Kashmiri Lal Vs. Seeta Devi through her L.R. and another

2246

68 Kavita Devi Vs. Sanjay Kumar Dhiman 1338

69 Khub Ram Vs. State of H.P. & anr. 1364

70 Kiran Kumari Vs. State of H.P 2157

71 Kishan Chand Tundkia Vs. State Bank of India and others

D.B. 1576

72 Krishan Dutt and others Vs. Devkoo Devi 2019

73 Lalman Vs. Himmat Ram 1577

74 Lata Devi wife of Sh. Madan Lal and another Vs. Madan Lal son of Sh Atma Ram

2028

75 Luckey Kumar and another Vs. Rupa and another

2030

76 M/s Shakun Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Uma Dutt 2197

77 M/s Winsome Textile Industries Limited Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & another

D.B. 2370

78 M/s. Power Exponent Vs. M/s. Lanco Infratech Ltd EPC Division

1507

79 Manoj Kumar Vs. Mathra Dass and others. 2039

80 Maya Vs. Naresh Kumar 2208

81 Meena Devi Vs. Central Bank of India and others

2053

82 Mohinder Singh Gupta and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another

2345

83 Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 1292

84 Mohit Jindal son of Shri Hari Ram Jindal Vs. 2354

v

State of H.P. and others

85 Moti Ram Vs. State of H.P 1770

86 Naggan Patt & others Vs. Manoj Kumar & others

D.B. 2332

87 Namita Maniktala Vs. State of H.P. and others D.B. 2356

88 Nanak Chand s/o Sh. Basant Singh Vs. State of H.P. through Secretary (Home) and others

2372

89 Narain Singh Vs. Neelam & another 1653

90 Narayan Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2068

91 Narender Singh Shekhawat Vs. Jasbir Singh and others

1921

92 National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dhani Devi and others

1776

93 National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Subash Kumar & another.

2161

94 Naval Kapoor Vs. Harsh Kapoor and others 1412

95 Onkar Chand Vs. State of H.P. 1656

96 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hitender Singh and others

1928

97 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kalawati and others

1663

98 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sartabi and others

1936

99 Oriental Insurance Co.Vs. Jalal Deen and others

2298

100 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Roop Lal & others

1942

101 Pancham Chand Vs. The State of H.P and another

D.B. 1715

102 Paras Ram and others Vs. Chetan Deep Major and others

1882

103 Pardeep Singh s/o Shri Hari Chand Vs. State of H.P. through Secretary Home and Others

1943

104 Parma Nand son of Shri Kirpa Ram Vs. State of H.P. and another

2164

105 Pintu Ram alias Suminder Vs. State of HP 1257

vi

106 Prabhu Ram Vs. Nardoo (since deceased ) 1987

107 Prem Lata and another Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another

2165

108 Pritam Chand son of Sh Madho Ram and others Vs. Naresh Kumar and another

1550

109 Prithi Chand & others Vs. Kashmir Singh 1391

110 Prithvi Singh s/o Shri Kapoor Singh Vs. Devli Devi and another

1851

111 Puran Chand Bhardwaj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others

D.B. 1722

112 Puran Singh s/o Sh. Paras Ram Vs. Yoginder Pal s/o Sh. Paras Ram & Others

1790

113 Pushpa Devi & others Vs. The United Insurance Company & others

2299

114 R.B. Industries and another Vs. Amrit Lal 1509

115 R.B. Industries and another Vs. Rajesh Kumar 1512

116 Rahul minor Vs. Surjeet Singh s/o Sh. Kamal Kishore and Another

2333

117 Rajesh Chand Mehta and Others Vs. M/s.Palampur Cooperative Tea Factory Ltd.

1669

118 Rajesh Kumar Sood Vs. Parvej Nowrojee and others

D.B. 1583

119 Rajinder Kumar Vs. Union of India & ors D.B. 2251

120 Rajiv Kumar Koundal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

D.B. 1884

121 Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P 1852

122 Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Cr. Appeal No.: 1 of 2016

D.B. 1886

123 Rakesh Mehta and another Vs. Municipal Corporation, Shimla and another

1597

124 Ram Parkash Vs. Sat Paul 2374

125 Ramesh alias Rangil Singh son of Shri Munshi Ram Vs. State of H.P.

2212

126 Ravi Dutt Vs. State of HP 1263

127 Reena and another Vs. State Bank of Patiala & ors.

1516

vii

128 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mugli Begum and others

2303

129 Rimpal Kumar Vs. Ghoghan 1371

130 Roshan Lal Sharma Vs. Wattan Singh Dogra 1417

131 Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others

2213

132 Sandhya Vs. State of H.P and another D.B. 1737

133 Sanjay Sharma Vs. Dharam Dass Pathania 1945

134 Sant Ram and Anr. Vs. Nikra Ram 1419

135 Satish Chander Thakur Vs. State of H.P. and another

D.B. 2255

136 Satish Chandra Mishra Vs. Union of India & Others

D.B. 2072

137 Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited Vs. Continental Foundation Joint Venture

D.B. 2081

138 Satya Devi and others Vs. Rajinder Kumar Jut and others

1955

Senior Executive Engineer, HPSEB Electrical Division Kullu Vs. Chet Ram

1518

139 Shadi Lal Sharma Vs. Mool Chand Aggarwal 1856

140 Sham Mahajan Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (PWD) to the Govt. of H.P. & another

1602

141 Shanta Karol Vs. The Land Acquisition Collector, NTPC & ors.

1376

142 Shanta Karol Vs. The Land Acquisition Collector, NTPC & ors. RFA No. 244 of 2016.

1378

143 Sharda Vs. Surat Singh 2170

144 Sita Devi & ors. Vs. Bimla Devi & ors 1862

145 Sita Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others

1249

146 Sodi Singh Vs. Ram Dassi & another 1613

147 Soma Devi & Others Vs. Kuldip K.Sud 1344

148 State of H.P. Vs. Amrit Lal & others 1553

149 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Davinder Kumar and others

D.B. 1741

viii

150 State of H.P Vs. Ashok Kumar D.B. 1675

151 State of H.P. Vs. Avinash Gulati & others

1381

152 State of H.P. Vs. Dhanwant Singh & others. D.B. 1679

153 State of H.P. Vs. Anil Kumar D.B. 1615

154 State of H.P. Vs. Anil Kumar Cr. Appeal No.587 of 2010

D.B. 1904

155 State of H.P. Vs. Bajro D.B. 1310

156 State of H.P. Vs. Beli Ram 1557

157 State of H.P. Vs. Bishan Singh 1305

158 State of H.P. Vs. Dharam Chand D.B. 1313

159 State of H.P. Vs. Dolma and another D.B. 2173

160 State of H.P. Vs. Hardit & Ors. D.B. 1681

161 State of H.P. Vs. Pawan Kumar and another 1750

162 State of H.P. Vs. R.K.Chahal & ors. 1274

163 State of H.P. Vs. Ravinder Sharma D.B. 2097

164 State of H.P. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar 1429

165 State of H.P. Vs. Swaroop Lal D.B. 1686

166 State of Himachal Pradesh & another Vs. Amar Singh

2176

167 State of Himachal Pradesh & another Vs. Madan Singh

2179

168 State of Himachal Pradesh & another Vs. Parkash Chand

2181

169 State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Sanjay Kumar CWP No.2189 of 2016

D.B. 2336

170 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Ashwani Kumar

D.B. 2200

171 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Dassi Devi D.B. 1990

172 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Dile Ram

D.B. 1350

173 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Dinesh Kumar D.B. 2214

174 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Kamaljeet Singh and another

D.B. 1797

ix

175 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Karam Chand & anr.

1806

176 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Kishori Lal D.B. 2106

177 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Dutt

D.B. 1397

178 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Mani Devi and others

D.B. 2264

179 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Naresh Kumar

alias Nitu D.B. 1994

180 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Om Dutt and another

D.B. 1867

181 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Parmod Kumar and others

D.B. 1621

182 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Prakash Joshi and others

D.B. 2220

183 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Puneet Sharma & Others

D.B. 1694

184 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raj Kumar alias Raju

D.B. 1625

185 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sanjay Kumar & another

D.B. 1432

186 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sanjay Kumar alias Sanju

D.B. 2383

187 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 2010

D.B. 2271

188 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Santosh Kumar D.B. 1520

189 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Satish Kumar D.B. 1999

190 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shesh Ram & ors.

1559

191 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Vijender Singh

D.B. 1528

192 Sumeer Nath Vs. Mohan Lal deceased through L.Rs

1

193 Sunil Bhaseen Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2306

194 Sunil Saini Vs. State of H.P. & others 1811

195 Sunita Kumari Vs. P.C. Dhiman & & Another D.B. 1629

x

196 Surender Kumar Gupta & Others Vs. H.P. State Forest Development Corporation & Others

D.B. 1279

197 Suresh Chand s/o late Sh. Ishwar Dutt

Sharma Vs. State of H.P. through Secretary (Home) and others

2314

198 Surinder Vs. State of H.P. & others CWP No. 4419 of 2014

D.B. 2183

199 Sushma Devi Vs. Malkiat Singh 2004

200 Swaroop Vs. State of H.P. and another 2391

201 The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prem Lata and others

1699

202 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.

Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another

2316

203 The United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Janki Devi & others

1957

204 The United India Insurance Company Vs. Chottu Khan & others

1959

205 United India Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Suresh Kumar & others

2318

206 Varinder Kumar Madan Vs. Kali Ram son of Shri Mathu Ram & others

2228

207 Vijay Kumar Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others 1542

208 Vijay Kumar Vs. Shakila Khatun and others 2323

209 Vinod Kumar Vs. Kaulan Devi and another 1701

210 Yashpal Singh & others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Another

D.B. 2286

*********************************************************************************

- 1 -

SUBJECT INDEX

„A‟

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996- Section 34- Work was awarded to the contractor for carrying earth work, retaining Wall, CD Works etc. on the Shimla – Wangtoo Road NH-22- work was to be completed within two years but the completion date was extended by one year – State alleged that site was abandoned by the Contractor but the Contractor urged that work was closed by the State- 90% of the payment for the work executed by the Contractor was received by him- dispute was referred to the Arbitrator- award was passed by the Arbitrator and the case was remanded to Arbitrator for a fresh consideration - a fresh award was passed - objections were filed to the award - it was contended that Arbitrator had not assigned any reasons- held, that reasons are not detailed but order shows application of mind and consideration of entire material placed on record by the parties- award passed by the Arbitrator cannot be said to be perverse,

erroneous, illegal or opposed to public policy. (Para-5 to 32) Title: Sham Mahajan Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (PWD) to the Govt. of H.P. & another Page-1602

„C‟

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Section 96- Plaintiff filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 7 lacs pleading that a false complaint was filed against him- suit was decreed by the trial Court- compensation of Rs.1 lac was awarded- held in appeal that plaintiff had not disclosed as to how and in what manner his reputation was harmed- he has not disclosed the contents of the complaint – no evidence of malice was given- simply because, complaint was dismissed, cannot lead to an inference that the complaint was filed maliciously – absence of reasonable cause is different from the malice - reasons were also not specified for quantifying the damages @ Rs.1 lac- appeal allowed and judgment of the Court set aside. (Para-8 to 27) Title: Prithi Chand & others Vs. Kashmir Singh Page-1391

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Section 96- Specific Relief Act, 1963- Section 34- Plaintiffs filed a suit pleading that Santa and Surbhan were non-occupancy tenants along with Gopala, Gobind and Rohli - name of Naulu figured as non-occupancy tenant due to clerical error without any legal and valid order- suit was opposed by pleading that Naulu was cultivating the suit land as tenant since the time of his ancestor- plaintiff has no legal right to challenge the revenue entries- suit was dismissed by the trial Court- an appeal was preferred, which was dismissed- held, in second appeal that Appellate Court had jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial Court and the judgment of Appellate Court must reflect conscious application of mind -

in case the judgment of the trial Court is reversed, Appellate Court has to take into consideration the reasons assigned by the trial Court and thereafter it has to assign its own reasons for coming to a different conclusion- Appellate Court had set aside the findings recorded in favour of the defendants and has not given the reasons for coming to a different conclusion - appeal allowed and case remanded. (Para-13 to 17) Title: Luckey Kumar and another Vs. Rupa and another Page- 2030

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Section 100- Limitation Act, 1963- Section 14- Plaintiff filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs.75,000/- pleading that she had appeared in all the papers of M.A.

Sanskrit examination but she was shown absent- a representation was made to which respondent replied that her answers sheets were not traceable- her one year was wasted - suit was decreed for Rs. 50,000/-- an appeal was preferred, which was dismissed- plaintiff had earlier filed a complaint before Consumer Forum, which was dismissed as not maintainable- held, that result was declared in the month of October, 1993- complaint was filed on 8.11.1993, which was dismissed on the ground that complainant was not a consumer- suit was filed thereafter- plaintiff was pursuing remedy in a wrong forum and the time spent by her before the Forum has to be excluded- plaintiff was rightly held entitled to the exclusion of time spent by her before the Forum- appeal dismissed. (Para-11 to 14) Title: H.P. University & Others Vs. Vandana Pathania & Others Page-1847

- 2 -

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Section 100- Plaintiffs filed a civil suit pleading that T was owner in possession of the suit land- he represented that suit land was free from all encumbrances and got the same exchanged with the plaintiffs – one J started interfering with the suit land on which plaintiffs filed a civil suit against him and K, which was decreed- an application was filed by J, on which Deputy Commissioner, Shimla cancelled the grant of nautor land in favour of T- suit was dismissed by the trial Court- an appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed- held in second appeal nautor was cancelled on the ground of violation of H.P. Grant of Nautor Land to Landless Persons and Other Eligible Persons Scheme, 1975 by exchanging the same with the suit land- initially period restricting the transfer was fixed as 15 years, which was enhanced to 20 years- this will not affect T who was in possession prior to enhancement - nautor could have been cancelled on the ground of contravention- judgment and decree passed by the Court quashed and set aside. (Para-8 to 11) Title: Balak Ram and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others Page-1819

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Section 151- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2- Plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking declaration that defendants No.1 to 4 are raising unscientific construction, which is dangerous to the plaintiff, his family members and public- application for interim injunction for restraining the defendants from raising construction in unscientific manner was also sought- application was partly allowed by the trial Court- an appeal was preferred- application for enforcement of the order or police help was also sought, which was dismissed- held, that order passed by the trial Court has not attained finality and matter is sub-judice before the Appellate Court- complicated question of facts is involved, which cannot be decided in the interim application- plaintiff has an alternative remedy of filing an application for disobedience the order of the Court- application was rightly dismissed by the trial Court- revision dismissed. (Para-12 to 19) Title: Varinder Kumar Madan Vs. Kali Ram son of Shri Mathu Ram & others Page-2228

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order 1 Rule 8-A read with Order 1 Rule 10- Plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking declaration against State Bank of India- an application for impleadment was filed by one J- held, that a person can be impleaded as a party in a civil suit to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the disputes – no relief was prayed against J- since, no relief has been sought against J, therefore, J cannot be impleaded as party- however, he is interested in question of law which is directly and substantially in issue in RSA- therefore, he is permitted to be impleaded as intervener with limited rights to address oral submissions and to file certified copies of decision of Courts and Tribunals. (Para-11) Title: Jaspreet Singh s/o Sh. T.S. Bakshi Vs. Dr. V.K. Rampal S/o Dr. K.N. Rampal Page-1504

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order 7 Rule 14- An application was filed for placing on record the spot map- same was dismissed on the ground that spot map was not admissible in evidence in absence of demarcation report - copy of demarcation report, statements of the parties and spot map are annexed to the present petition – held that spot map is not relevant in absence of the report of the demarcation and its production was rightly refused- however, in view of report of the demarcation and other documents having been filed before the Court, case is remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. (Para-2 to 5) Title: Dharam Pal Vs. Uttam Chand Page-1764

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order 22 Rules 4 and 5- Appellant/defendant No. 1 had expired on 31.12.2015 and applicants who are sons of defendant No. 2 filed an application to implead them as legal representatives on the basis of Will- application was opposed on the ground that right to sue was personal to deceased, subject matter could not have been bequeathed and the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances - held, that adjudication of the claim regarding legal representatives is only for determination of the lis pending before the Court - it does not affect the rights of other legal representatives- applicants have claimed rights, titles and interest on the basis of Will executed by the deceased/appellant/defendant no. 1- therefore, they are

- 3 -

entitled to be substituted – application allowed. (Para-8 to 15) Title: Jagdish alias Maru Vs. Inder Singh alias Dilbhag Singh & others Page-1499

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order 26 Rule 5- Plaintiffs are owners of the suit land, which was purchased vide sale deed No. 196- possession of the defendant is unlawful- earlier suit was filed, which was compromised but the compromise was not executable and was rescinded by the

parties- suit was dismissed by the trial Court- an appeal was preferred, which was allowed and the case was remanded to the trial Court with a direction to offer an opportunity to the plaintiffs to lead evidence on newly framed issue- held, that earlier suit was settled by way of compromise – decree was passed on 30.12.1992, whereas, suit was filed on 7.9.2006- no prayer for setting aside the judgment and decree was made- plaintiffs cannot wriggle out of the compromise decree- specific issue was framed, ‗whether plaintiff was estopped from challenging the compromise decree by their act and conduct? – additional issue was not required to framed as there was no

prayer in the suit for declaring the judgment and decree as null and void- where parties went into the trial knowing the dispute, absence of issue will not prejudice the parties - judgment and decree passed by the Additional Districts Judge set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs dismissed. (Para-21 to 31) Title: Bharat Singh and ors. Vs. Gian Chand and ors. Page-1567

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order 26 Rule 9- A Local Commissioner was appointed by executing Court to demarcate the land to identify the land of both the parties and to execute the decree- held, that suit land was held to be identifiable by the Court passing the judgment, which was upheld in appeal- therefore, Executing Court could not have ordered the demarcation- revision petition allowed- order of the trial Court set aside. (Para-9 to 12) Title: Amar Chand & ors. Vs. Shankar Verma Page-2328

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order 47 Rule 1- A review petition was filed on the ground that respondent had taken a misleading and contrary stand before the Court- held, that Government had given sanction to fill up the post on contract basis and the appointment of the petitioner on regular basis was dehors the sanction granted by the Government- a mistake committed by the Officer will not operate as estoppel - power of review cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision is incorrect or erroneous on merits- further an appeal was preferred, which was dismissed - no case of review is made out- petition dismissed. (Para-4 to 10) Title: Yashpal Singh & others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Another (D.B.) Page-2286

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 125- Petitioner claimed that she is legally wedded wife of the respondent who is posted as peon-cum-chowkidar- one son was born from the

wedlock- respondent left his home and starting residing with his sister and brother-in-law- respondent has not paid any maintenance to the wife and the son- hence, petition for seeking maintenance was filed- petition was allowed by the trial Court- maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month was awarded as interim maintenance – aggrieved from the order, the present petition has been filed - held, that maintenance is to be granted to protect woman and children from the vagrancy and destitution- maintenance includes food expenses, clothing expenses, medical expenses, education expenses and residential accommodation expenses- respondent is drawing salary of Rs. 18,564/- - amount of Rs. 1,500/- is not sufficient to maintain the wife and children-

petition allowed and the maintenance enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- per month from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. (Para-8 to 10) Title: Lata Devi wife of Sh. Madan Lal and another Vs. Madan Lal son of Sh Atma Ram Page-2028

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 156(3)- Complaint was filed by the respondent No. 2 before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Arki – it was contended that Judicial Magistrate had ordered the registration of FIR without application of mind- held, that Magistrate had not even mentioned in the order that he had gone through the complaint- order was passed in routine and mechanical manner- complaint was not supported by an affidavit- veracity of the complaint was not verified- Magistrate has to apply his mind to determine whether the allegation in the

- 4 -

complaint prima facie make out a case or not- petition allowed- FIR and further proceedings quashed. (Para-5 to 12) Title: Amar Singh and another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another Page-1445

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 167(2)- Accused were arrested on 5.5.2016- they filed an application for bail pleading that challan was not filed within statutory period and they

are entitled to bail- application was rejected on the ground that report was filed against them on 29.7.2016- they had lost right of bail- held, that accused were found in possession of 1 kg. charas, which is less than commercial quantity – challan was to be filed within a period of 60 days which expired on 4.7.2016- challan was filed on 29.7.2016 after the lapse of statutory period- application was filed on 12.7.2016- accused got indefeasible right to be enlarged on bail- application was wrongly rejected- application allowed and accused released on bail of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount. (Para-7 to 13) Title: Kiran Kumari Vs. State of H.P.

Page-2157

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 438- An FIR was registered against the writ petitioner for the commission of offence punishable under Section 363 of I.P.C.- petitioner sought pre arrest bail- held, that age of the prosecutrix is 17 years 6 months and 8 days- while granting bail, Court has to see the nature and seriousness of offence, character and behavior of the accused, circumstances peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial and investigation, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with and the larger interest of the public and State- affidavit executed by the prosecutrix cannot be taken into consideration at the stage of consideration of bail – consent of the prosecutrix is not material in an offence of kidnapping – investigation is at initial stage- custodial interrogation is essential for proper investigation- hence, bail cannot be granted-

petition dismissed. (Para-6 to 9) Title: Daulat Ram s/o Sh. Hina Singh and Another Vs. State of H.P. Page-2191

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 438- An FIR was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B Indian Penal Code- petitioner is running an Institute in the name and style of Interactive Education/Interactive Fashion Designing and issuing various mark sheets, advance degrees and diplomas by taking amounts ranging from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/-- he has relied upon a certificate, which shows that Institute was authorized to take 80 students in one batch- large number of certificates have been obtained- students were made to believe that the certificates/diplomas/degrees are lawful- Institute was running without any sanction from the authorities- no case for bail is made out- petition dismissed. (Para-4 to 15) Title: Chander Kant Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Page-2290

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- A complaint was filed for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for executing a false gift deed and for attestation of mutation on the basis of the same- held, that evidence of finger print expert to prove that thumb impression did not belong to A was not led - therefore, inference of gift deed being forged cannot be drawn-

Magistrate had wrongly summoned the petitioner- petition allowed and summoning order quashed. (Para-2 to 5) Title: Bagga Ram Vs. Gurpal Singh and another Page-1817

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- An FIR was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code- present petition was filed to quash the proceedings- held, that petitioner had given a certificate that K had sold his property for Rs.1 lac and the cash was being carried in the vehicle- Manager had no authority to issue the certificate regarding the transaction conducted outside the premises of the bank- statements of the witnesses recorded by the police establish a prima facie case against the petitioner – the disputed question of facts cannot be decided in the

- 5 -

proceedings for quashing the F.I.R.- petition dismissed. (Para-5 to 11) Title: Devinder Kumar Dhar son of late Shri Shyam Lal Dhar Vs. State of H.P. and another Page-2194

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- An FIR was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of I.P.C.- it was prayed that FIR be quashed in view of compromise between the parties - held, that commercial

transaction dispute, matrimonial disputes and family disputes should be quashed on the settlement- matter has been compromised between the parties and no useful purpose will be served by allowing the proceedings to continue- petition allowed and FIR quashed. (Para-6) Title: Parma Nand son of Shri Kirpa Ram and others Vs. State of H.P. and another Page-2164

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- An FIR was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C.- Prosecutrix was in love with

the petitioner- petitioner had promised to marry the prosecutrix and had committed sexual intercourse with her- an agreement was executed between father of the prosecutrix and father of the petitioner in which it was agreed that petitioner would solemnize the marriage with the prosecutrix – the marriage was solemnized between the parties- a cancellation report was filed but same was rejected on the ground that subsequent marriage does not absolve the accused from liability- held, that prosecutrix had stated that FIR was got registered mistakenly- it is not the case of the forcible sexual intercourse but consensual act- prosecutrix had performed marriage with the accused- there is no possibility of her supporting charge in case of trial- FIR and consequent proceedings quashed. (Para-2 to 11) Title: Dev Raj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another Page-2296

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- An FIR was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 – it was pleaded that necessary sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 was not obtained- held, that previous sanction is required at the stage of prosecution and not at the stage of investigation- the fact whether the accused had received the amount or not and whether it was legal remuneration or not cannot be determined in this proceeding but can be determined only after the trial- petition dismissed. (Para-5 to 9) Title: Suresh Chand s/o late Sh. Ishwar Dutt Sharma Vs. State of H.P. through Secretary (Home) and others Page-2314

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- An FIR was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C- it has been asserted that matter has been compromised between the parties- FIR and consequent proceeding be

quashed – held, that offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C is against the public at large- Notice of Accusation has been put to the accused- power of quashing FIR and Criminal Proceedings should be exercised sparingly in such a situation- petition dismissed. (Para-6 to 10) Title: Mohit Jindal son of Shri Hari Ram Jindal Vs. State of H.P. and others Page-2354

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- An FIR was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 506, 511, 427 and 34 of Indian Penal Code- a civil suit was filed by the Company, in which interim injunction was granted- application

for taking action for violation of the order of the Court was filed, which was dismissed- complaint was filed with the same allegations before the Magistrate, which was forwarded to the Police for investigation- FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint- held, that dispute between the parties is primarily of civil nature- Criminal Court should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling the score – criminal proceedings can be quashed if they amount to abuse of the process of the Court- incident had taken in the year 2010 and complaint was filed in 2014 - no explanation for delay was provided- petition allowed- FIR and consequent proceedings quashed. (Para-5 to 18) Title: Mohinder Singh Gupta and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another Page- 2345

- 6 -

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- An FIR was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 408, 420 & 120B I.P.C.- present petition was filed for quashing the same- it was contended that inquiry was conducted under Section 67 of H.P. Cooperative Societies Act 1968 and the FIR was not maintainable- held, that proceedings in Cooperative Societies Act are different from the criminal proceedings- simultaneous proceedings can be initiated on the same facts - challan was filed before the Court and the FIR cannot be quashed in such circumstances - disputed question of facts cannot be adjudicated in the proceedings for quashing the FIR- petition dismissed. (Para-6 to 10) Title: Nanak Chand s/o Sh. Basant Singh Vs. State of H.P. through Secretary (Home) and others Page-2372

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- An FIR was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 325, 201 and 504 of I.P.C. against the petitioner – present petition was filed for quashing the FIR on the ground that FIR was registered as a counter

blast to the FIR lodged by the petitioner – record shows that both the parties had quarreled with each other- occurrence had led to the registration of two cross FIRs - in case of quashing one FIR, the defence in other FIR would be adversely affected - quashing of FIR should not be exercised to defeat the legitimate prosecution and such power can be exercised in those cases, where allegations in the complaint, even if taken at its face value and accepted as true in its entirety do not disclose the commission of offence - petition dismissed. (Para-9 to 15) Title: Bhavak Parasher Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & anr. Page-1963

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- An FIR was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of I.P.C. – present petition was filed for quashing the proceedings- held, that FIR cannot be quashed on the ground that sexual intercourse was with the consent – statements of the prosecution witnesses prima facie show the

commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C- the matter will be decided by the Court, especially when charge-sheet had been filed- petition dismissed. (Para-5 to 9) Title: Pardeep Singh s/o Shri Hari Chand Vs. State of H.P. through Secretary Home and Others Page-1943

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- Commissioner-cum-Secretary granted permission for transfer of land to the Himachal Pradesh Youth Services and Sports Department with certain conditions- petitioner-company executed a lease deed for the construction of International Cricket Stadium – demarcation was conducted and it was found that encroachment was made by the petitioner- FIR was registered- petition was filed for quashing the proceedings- held, that all the co-sharers of the land sought to be demarcated and owners of adjacent land have to be impleaded as parties at the time of demarcation – statements of parties should be recorded- demarcation was conducted without informing the petitioner and its office bearers – their statements were not recorded- they were not summoned to state their objections to the demarcation – it was to be proved that entry on the property was with an intent to annoy, intimidate or insult- merely because annoyance, intimidation or insult was the result of entry is not sufficient- allegations do not disclose the commission of offence- role of president or Secretary was not mentioned- completion certification was granted in favour of the petitioner- continuation of the trial would amount to abuse of process of Court and would not serve the ends of justice-

petition allowed and FIR ordered to be quashed. (Para-6 to 28) Title: Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association & another Vs. State of H.P. Page-1485

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- Complaint was filed for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 352, 504 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1)(x) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989- petitioner sought quashing of FIR- Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Special Judge- charge was framed by the Sessions Judge- an application was filed for placing the documents on record - no order was passed on the application – accused were not heard prior to framing of charge- accused has a statutory legal right of hearing before framing of

- 7 -

charge- case remanded to Special Judge with a direction to hear the accused and thereafter to frame the charge in accordance with the law. (Para-5 to 12) Title: Pritam Chand son of Sh Madho Ram and others Vs. Naresh Kumar and another Page-1550

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- Petition was filed for quashing FIR registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 287, 336 and 304-A IPC pleading that

matter has been compromised between the parties- a sum of Rs. 13 lacs was paid to the mother of the deceased- held, that agreement is yet to be proved- a cancellation report has been filed before the Court which will adjudicate on the same-further, offences alleged against the petitioner have social impact and does not affect the private persons alone- FIR cannot be quashed- appeal dismissed. (Para-6 and 7) Title: Prithvi Singh s/o Shri Kapoor Singh Vs. Devli Devi and another Page-1851

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- Petitioner filed an application seeking direction to register an FIR against the accused under Section 302 of I.P.C- held, that deceased was student of plus two class, aged about 18 years- he was grandson of the petitioner- one S had taken the deceased to Baddi on the pretext that his luggage was lying at Baddi- petitioner being grandmother of the deceased resisted but S managed to take deceased to Baddi in a Truck- petitioner received information that her grandson was murdered at Baddi - deceased had received injury on his head besides injury on lips- petitioner made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner to look into the matter- State filed a reply stating that inquiry was conducted during which it was found that case did not appear to be of murder- however, head injury was noticed in the inquest report - deceased was last seen in the company of R and S- registration of FIR is compulsory/mandatory if the information given to the police under Section 154 discloses commission of a cognizable offence- in these circumstances, petition allowed- Superintendent of

Police directed to register the FIR within three days, conclude investigations within eight weeks and to file the challan in the Court in accordance with law. (Para- 5 to 9) Title: Dropti Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another Page-1829

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- Petitioner filed an application seeking DNA examination of the respondent and his children to obtain expert opinion - it was pleaded that petitioner is residing with the respondent for more than 40 years as his wife and two children were born from the wedlock- respondent has stopped maintaining the petitioner- petitioner prayed that residence order be passed- application for DNA examination was dismissed by the Court- held, that use of DNA test is extremely delicate and sensitive aspect when it gets down to human relationship- Court must exercise its discretion only after balancing the interest of the parties and on due consideration whether DNA test is needed for a just decision or not - petitioner admits that she was never married to the respondent- she further claims that respondent had access to her due to which two children were born- no prejudice will be caused to the respondent or the children by asking them to undergo DNA test- petition allowed and the order of the trial Court set aside. (Para-6 to 12) Title: Sharda Vs. Surat Singh Page-2170

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1982- Section 482- An FIR was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of I.P.C.- a cancellation report was filed, which

was converted into the complaint of respondent No. 2- held, that parties have not only married but they are residing happily – continuation of proceedings would cause irreparable harm, hardship and may even tarnish and spoil the reputation of the parties and their families- both the parties were major and free to marry any person of their choice - petition allowed and the complaint pending before the Magistrate ordered to be quashed. (Para-5 to 13) Title: Swaroop Vs. State of H.P. and another Page-2391

Companies Act, 1956- Section 243- Petition for winding up the company was filed pleading that tenders were invited for executing major civil works- contracts were awarded in favour of the respondent- a dispute arose, which was referred to Arbitrator - extension of time was allowed with

- 8 -

cost and interest- full amount and interest were not paid- hence, the company be wound up- petition was admitted- held, in appeal that where there is bona fide dispute regarding the debt and the defence is a substantial one, then the court will not order winding up- where the petition was presented to exert pressure to pay the bona fide disputed amount, petition is liable to be dismissed- Court will consider the wishes of shareholders and creditors and winding up will not be ordered, if it will not benefit the creditors- there is no evidence to show that amount was acknowledged by the respondent – failure to reply to the notice is not sufficient for winding up the company- appeal allowed and company petition dismissed. (Para-38 to 69) Title: Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited Vs. Continental Foundation Joint Venture (D.B.) Page-2081

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Basement area of the building known as Municipal Coffee House was leased to the petitioner on annual rent of Rs. 21,500/- on yearly basis- petitioner could not occupy the same as there was septic tank as well as sewerage pipe passing

through the premises, which was emitting foul smell- respondent no. 2 filed a petition for recovery of rent, use and occupation charges and for eviction- allotment was also cancelled- petition filed by the Municipal Committee, Theog was allowed and the petitioner was held to be in arrears of Rs. 2,11,016/- held, that notice under Section 4 of the Act was never issued to the petitioner- Collector has to form an opinion as to whether any person or persons are in unauthorized occupation of the public premises – there was no reference that petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of public premises- order of eviction passed by the Collector as claimed by the Appellate Authority set aside- however, order directing the petitioner to pay lease amount as use and occupation charges upheld. (Para-9 to 15) Title: Anil Bhardwaj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another Page-2231

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Delay in filing the revision petition was condoned by

the Deputy Registrar (Audit), Corporative Society, Shimla - held, that period spent in pursuing the writ petition CWP No. 5697 of 2014 was to be excluded- however, delay till filing the writ petition or thereafter was not condoned- Deputy Registrar had passed a non-speaking order- petition allowed- order set aside- direction issued to the authority to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties. (Para-2 to 6) Title: Naggan Patt & others Vs. Manoj Kumar & others (D.B.) Page-2332

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Direction issued to respondent No. 7, M.C. Shimla to comply with the directions passed by the Court from time to time, to all the respondents to respond to the suggestions made by the learned amicus curiae by or before the next date- State authorities and all concerned departments to do the needful, so that respondent No. 12 is in a position to take all steps mentioned in the compliance affidavit- respondents No. 1 and 2 directed to appear before the Court to explain why they be not dealt with in terms of the mandate of Contempt of Courts Act- respondents No. 1 and 2 directed to obtain necessary certificates required under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974- respondent No. 7 directed to take all steps required for maintaining the Takka Bench Toilet at Jakhu- State authorities directed to file response to the compliance affidavit made by the Senior Divisional Engineer-III, Ambala Cantt- respondents No. 1 and 13 directed to take follow up action - concerned authorities directed to do the needful as required in terms of recommendations made

by the Tree Committee. (Para-9) Title: Asha Chauhan Vs. Himachal Pradesh Bus Stand Management and Development Authority and others (D.B.) Page-2336

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Direction issued to the respondents to comply with the direction issued by the Court from time to time to expedite the process initiated by Government in terms of reply not to cut the trees but go for pruning, to submit details of the auction conducted and the amount deposited during the auction proceedings and to file fresh compliance report. (Para-4 and 5) Title: Court on its own motion Vs. State of H.P. and others (D.B.) (CWPIL No. 17 of 2014) Page-2339

- 9 -

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987- Section 14 (3) (a)- Petitioner challenged constitutionality of various sections of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act and Amendment Act No. 8 of 2012- Act provides that standard rent is to be determined after calculating the aggregate cost of construction plus market price of land on the date of commencement of construction- 10% of the amount so calculated is to be taken as basic rent—10% increase is to be allowed from the year of construction of the building to the year of the filing of the application, which shall be treated as standard rent- maintenance charges @ 5% of the standard rent, actual municipal taxes payable on pro rata basis and other payments towards amenities like water and electricity are to be taken into consideration in case of residential building- 15% of the aggregate cost of construction/basic amount is to be taken in case of non-residential building - held, that Rent Controller will not be in a position to take note of other important factors like type of construction, locational importance, situation of premises i.e. ground floor, first floor etc. and other advantages, availability of amenities like access to the place

of public importance like educational institutions, bus-stand, railway station, hospitals etc.- no

guidelines have been laid down for calculating the aggregate cost of construction and market price of land- applying the criterion to old building will lead to iniquitous and incongruous result as the standard rent will be extremely low- 5% increase towards maintenance will not be sufficient to meet the costs- this will be contrary to the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, which casts a duty on the landlord to keep the building in proper maintenance- there is no provision for determining the rent upon the locational importance of the premises- Section 4 is not based upon any intelligible differentia and does not have any rational relation to the object sought to be achieved – Section 4 struck down as unconstitutional. (Para- 33 to 58) Title: Chaman Lal Bali Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another (D.B.) Page-1450

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987- Section 5, 6, 7, 8 and 30- All these sections have been challenged as unconstitutional- held, that these provisions are aimed at preventing rack-renting and resorting to eviction- provision for punishment has been made to dissuade the landlord from charging excess rent - however, provisions are loaded against the landlord- no rational basis for the legislative formulation is decipherable from these provisions- it was necessary for the legislature to ensure that the ‗standard rent‘ provision has an inbuilt mechanism for not only determination but also for a proper periodical correction of the ‗standard rent‘ payable to the landlord- when provision of standard rent does not pass the test of reasonableness, then subsidiary and incidental provisions cannot stand alone and are liable to

be struck down as unconstitutional save and except where the rent is fixed after an agreement between the landlord and tenant. Title: Chaman Lal Bali Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another (D.B.) Page-1450

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987- Section 14 (3) (c) - Proviso of Section 14 (3) (c) is challenged as irrational, arbitrary and unreasonable- held, that provision of re-entry has been upheld in majority of rent legislations - even Supreme Court of India had directed the re-entry of tenant in pending proceedings - however, there is no mechanism for re-entry on mutually agreed terms- no provision has been made for construction of the premises after getting the possession- It does not even contemplate payment of compensation to the tenant in case of failure to hand over the premises- Court is not competent

to supply the omission on the principle of justice and equity- in absence of any time frame, the landlord may choose to keep the building as it is for some period in order to fetch a substantial amount in sale - the provision affords no safeguard to the evicted tenant in case of failure to arrive at a mutual agreement- this provision is not in the interest of the landlord or the tenant and is totally unworkable; therefore, proviso held to be unconstitutional. (Para-70 to 104) Title: Chaman Lal Bali Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another (D.B.) Page-1450

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Husband of the petitioner was working in the Bank- he died on 1.10.2007- petitioner claimed compassionate appointment, which was rejected on the ground that respondent had stopped giving appointment on compassionate appointment and new

- 10 -

scheme had been started- petitioner filed an application for payment of ex gratia amount, which was rejected but said rejection was not conveyed to the petitioner- respondent stated that claim was rejected on the ground that petitioner had good financial condition at the time of death and was not entitled to the claim- held, that scheme for appointment of dependents of deceased employees and employees who had retired on medical ground was issued by Indian Banks Association- the scheme also provided for financial condition of the family - computation of family pension had been excluded while calculating the monthly income of the family- family pension was not something to be added to the income for determining whether ex-gratia payment is to be made or not- claim was rejected on the ground that family pension was sufficient, which was wrong – petition allowed. (Para-7 to 18) Title: Meena Devi Vs. Central Bank of India and others Page-2053

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Land bearing khasra no. 311 was jointly owned by

predecessor-in-interests of the petitioner and respondents but it was allotted to the petitioner after consolidation - petitioner constructed a house and cattle shed- respondent No. 2 preferred a revision petition, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer, Hamirpur- he ordered that one biswa of land would be kept as joint- petitioner preferred an appeal, which was allowed and land was allotted to both the parties- respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the Additional Director Consolidation, which was dismissed – a revision was preferred, which was allowed and the orders passed by the Settlement Officer and Additional Director were set aside- land was allotted to the respondent No. 2 to the complete exclusion of the petitioner- held, that Director Consolidation called for reports of Consolidation Officer and concluded that major portion of the land is under possession of the respondents- he also concluded that land was under ownership and possession of the respondents prior to consolidation - Director could not have varied or reversed any order except when he was satisfied that proceedings were initiated for unlawful consideration- Director exceeded jurisdiction vested in him while exercising the revisional power under Section 54- Director had no power to call for the reports of the Consolidation Officer - there is no finding of the Director that lower court had exercised the jurisdiction illegally – Director cannot assume to himself the jurisdiction of original authority as a fact finding authority by appreciating the facts de-novo- Director had exceeded jurisdiction by reverting to the facts of the case and by returning finding on the factual matter by calling report of the Consolidation Officer- order passed by the Director set aside. (Para-9 to 16) Title: Bishan Dass Vs. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, and Ors. Page-2118

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Land of the petitioner was acquired for the construction of the road- land was not utilized by the State- held, that petitioner has raised a Dhara on the land with the consent of the respondent- if the land is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, land owner can seek return of the land- since, land had not been utilized by the State Government, therefore, direction issued to de-acquire the tract of three biswas of land and to consider issuance of a fresh notification under the provisions of Act, 2013. (Para-3 to 8) Title: Surinder Vs. State of H.P. & others (D.B.) (CWP No. 4419 of 2014) Page-2183

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Land of the petitioner was used for the construction of the link road – a direction was sought to pay the compensation- respondent contended that land

was donated by the petitioner and the road was constructed with his consent- held, that State is guardian of citizens and is supposed to be protector of their lives and properties - claim for depriving a person of his property cannot be defeated on the ground of delay- petition allowed and respondents directed to initiate proceedings for acquisition of the land or to restore it in the same condition and to pay compensation till utilization. Title: Sita Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (D.B.) Page-1249

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Land of the petitioner was used for the construction of the road without any acquisition- petitioner raised objection on which respondents were assured that compensation would be paid to them- however, no compensation was paid and present writ

- 11 -

petition was filed- held, that land of the petitioner was used for the construction of the road and no compensation was paid- compensation was paid to similarly situated person whose land was acquired- petition allowed and respondent directed to complete proceedings under Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of the land within a period of 6 months. Title: Birbal Vs. State of H.P. & Others Page-1252

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Land was acquired by the respondent for the construction/widening of Theog-Kotkhai-Hatkoti Road- notices were issued to the interested parties including the petitioner- compensation was assessed- no reference petition was filed- land was recorded to be Ghasani in the revenue record but was actually an orchard- petitioner made a representation for payment of compensation- however, compensation was not paid- held, that acquisition of land is not disputed- it was also not disputed that compensation was paid on the basis of negotiation- further, compensation was paid by treating the land as Ghasani but its

nature was changed to Bagicha Bhakhal Aval Faldaar by Settlement Collector- petitioner is entitled to be compensated for the price of the orchard- appeal allowed and direction issued to pay the compensation by treating the land as an orchard. (Para-7 to 13) Title: Bobi Sawant Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others Page-2009

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Order was passed by the Administrative Tribunal directing the authority to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate appointment on the basis of observations made in CWP No.9094 of 2013 and the connected matters- held, that petitioners have to pass deatiled order on the basis of judgment of the High Court- writ petition dismissed. (Para-2 and 3) Title: State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Sanjay Kumar (D.B.) (CWP No.2189 of 2016) Page-2336

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Petition has been filed for enforcement of Section 12 (i) of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009- more particularly with respect to providing 25% free seats to students of weaker section and disadvantaged group in all privately managed aided and managed non minority unaided schools - Government has notified guidelines for 25% admission of children belonging to weaker section and disadvantaged groups in private un-aided school – guidelines provide that process will be initiated when neighbourhood Government School has enrolled more than 25 children- held, that private unaided schools are required to admit in Class-1 children belonging to weaker section and disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood to the extent of at least 25% of the strength of that class - they are entitled to reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by them from the State- thus, State is ultimately paying for the education of the children - notification creates a hierarchy by providing that admission will be made only after getting no objection certificate from the neighbourhood primary school, whereas, no such hierarchy has been provided in the parent Act- it was not permissible for the Government to provide the hierarchy in the guidelines- hence, guidelines declared ultra vires and direction issued to issue fresh instructions (Para-9 to 23) Title: Namita Maniktala Vs. State of H.P. and others Page- 2356

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Petitioner filed a writ petition for seeking direction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No. 5 for embezzlement of the funds-

Court directed that inquiry conducted against respondent No. 5 should be carried out by High Ranking Officer not below the rank of Additional Registrar (Cooperation)- a fresh writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the quashing of inquiry report conducted by Additional Registrar (Monitoring)- it was contended that writ petition was not maintainable- held, that respondents had subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court in the earlier writ petition and the plea of maintainability is not available in the present writ petition- inquiry was conducted on the basis of judgment passed by the Court- therefore, plea of maintainability cannot be accepted at this stage- Court is shocked to see the manner in which inquiry was conducted and thereafter punishment was awarded- however, Court will not substitute its own view to that of the disciplinary authority- writ petition allowed- direction issued to pass a fresh order on the basis of

- 12 -

inquiry report. (Para-27 to 56) Title: Bipan Chand Sud & Others Vs. State of H.P. & Others Page-1317

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Petitioner is a Government Contractor and was debarred from participating in the tender by incorporating certain conditions- earlier similar conditions were quashed by the High Court- held, that conditions imposed are reasonable, which

can be imposed by Government- purpose of conditions was to see the capacity of the contractor to execute the work- no preferences was given to any particular contractor- petitioner did not have minimum annual average turnover and was not eligible to participate in the tender proceedings- petition dismissed. (Para-15 to 36) Title: Puran Chand Bhardwaj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others (D.B.) Page-1722

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Petitioner retired as Post Graduate Teacher Senior

Grade-I- earlier writ petition was filed- respondents framed a policy -petitioner was placed in the selection grade- petitioner agreed to be governed by Industrial DA pattern (IDA)- her pay was wrongly fixed after revision of pay- she filed a representation which was not accepted- held, that cause of action had accrued in the year 2001 when she had decided to switch over to IDA pattern- writ petition was filed in the year 2009 and there is inordinate delay in challenging the same- her pay was rightly fixed after revision- claim of the petitioner was based on misapprehension and imagination- writ petition dismissed. (Para-15 to 20) Title: Dev Kumari (since deceased) Vs. NHPC & Others Page-1239

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the certificate of registration of respondent No. 4 and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to issue the Public Distribution Supply to respondent No. 4- State authorities asserted that case of the respondent No. 4 was proceeded as per law applicable and the letters were made in terms of rules occupying the field- petitioner failed to show whether any law occupying the field provides that no registration can be granted- petitioner wants monopoly, which is not permissible- writ petition dismissed. (Para-2 to 6) Title: Anand Sharma Vs. State of HP and others (D.B.) Page-2331

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Petitioner was appointed as Director of Prosecution- notification retiring him from the services on 30.4.2007 was issued- however, one year extension was granted to the petitioner- application was filed by one H before Administrative Tribunal – no interim relief was granted and the matter was taken to High Court- fresh notification was issued, whereby extension granted in favour of the petitioner was withdrawn - pension case of the

petitioner was ordered to be processed as if he had retired as Joint Director- he filed a writ petition, which was dismissed- held, that writ petitioner was given the additional charge of Director of Prosecution while holding post of Joint Director- a Committee was constituted who selected the writ petitioner as Director of Prosecution- recommendation was accepted and a notification was issued – extension was granted against the substantive post of Joint Director but it was also provided that petitioner will continue to hold the charge of the routine duties of the Director (Prosecution)- it was held by High Court that extension was not granted in favor of the petitioner as Director (Prosecution) but as Joint Director- direction was issued to appoint H as

Director on adhoc basis- notification giving the extension in services was quashed and the respondents were directed to consider the writ petitioner as having retired from the post of Director (Prosecution) and to pursue his pension case accordingly- appointment of petitioner was made after following due process- petitioner was holding post of Director and retired as such on attaining the age of superannuation – however, extension given to him was never challenged by him and cannot be challenged now as petitioner is estopped by principle of acquiescence – direction issued to the respondent to grant retiral benefits against the post of Director up to 30th April, 2007 as per the last pay drawn by him on 30th April, 2007. (Para-18 to 39) Title: Satish Chander Thakur Vs. State of H.P. and another (D.B.) Page-2255

- 13 -

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Petitioner was appointed as mid day meal worker- her services were terminated on the basis of instruction issued by the Government - a representation was filed before Director of Elementary Education, HP, which was not accepted- held, that petitioner was appointed as mid day meal worker in 2004- Petitioner and ‗S‘ were appointed as mid day meal cook and helper in September, 2004 in first batch for six months- and thereafter, from February, 2004 this work was to be performed by respondents No. 5 and 6 in the second batch –‗S‘ left the job- petitioner and respondents No. 5 and 6 kept on performing their duties batch wise- it was decided that only one person between petitioner and respondent No. 6 would be retained- all the persons were appointed simultaneously- principle of last come first go will not be applicable- direction issued to make fresh appointment in terms of fresh guidelines. (Para-12 to 18) Title: Kanta Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Ors. Page-1646

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Petitioner was placed under suspension- an inquiry

was initiated against him which resulted in his removal from service - petitioner has not questioned the order of removal from the service- all the orders have merged in the order of the removal- writ petitioner has to question the order of removal from the service for seeking the required relief- petition dismissed as not maintainable. (Para-2 to 6) Title: Kishan Chand Tundkia Vs. State Bank of India and others (D.B.) Page-1576

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Petitioners are ‗A-Class‘ Labour Supply Mates and had been doing the work of unloading, sorting, stacking and re-stacking of timber at the Sale Depots- tenders were invited for loading, unloading, sorting, stacking and re-stacking of the Government/Private forest- petitioners are aggrieved by the conditions No. 9 and 39 providing that tenders will be finalized on negotiation amongst lowest tenderers, keeping in view the capability/ability of the labour supply mates- held, that petitioner had participated in tender

proceedings and came to the Court when they had failed to procure the work in terms of tender notice- it is within the domain of the department to prescribe conditions in the tender notice- Courts have limited power to interfere in the tender - if the action of the State is meant for public good and in public interest, no interference is called for – there is no illegality in calling a person for negotiation- petition dismissed. Title: Surender Kumar Gupta & Others Vs. H.P. State Forest Development Corporation & Others (D.B.) Page-1279

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Petitioners are working as Field Farm Technician Grade T-II in category-1 – they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for seeking direction to constitute an Assessment Committee to assess their qualifications and grant the Career Advancement benefit through promotion- respondents were directed to consider the application as representation and decide the same- claim was rejected on the ground that petitioners did not fulfill the requisite qualification in the relevant field- petitioners again approached the Central Administrative Tribunal but the original application was rejected- petition disposed of with a direction to respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioners in light of letters and notifications issued by ICAR. (Para-2 to 14) Title: Rajinder Kumar Vs. Union of India & ors (D.B.) Page-2251

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Public interest litigation raising the service dispute is

not maintainable- petition dismissed as withdrawn. (Para-2 to 4) Title: Rajiv Kumar Koundal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (D.B.) Page-1884

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Public interest litigation had been filed for saving historic pond by the petitioner/society pleading that pond is being converted into a stadium- respondents denied the allegations and stated that a resolution was passed by Gram Panchayat for diverting one part of the pond as proper pond and remaining part as stadium- held, that it was not explained as to what prejudice was being caused to the residents of area by implementing the resolution of the gram panchayat – society was not registered at the time of filing of the writ petition- there is no material on record to show that writ petition has been filed

- 14 -

in the public interest - writ petition dismissed. (Para-22 to 39) Title: Etihasik Dharohar (Talaab) Bachao Sanghrash Samiti, Kunihar Vs. State of H.P. & Others (D.B.) Page-1835

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Respondent No. 4 was permitted to serve on the post of cook - services of the petitioner were dispensed with on the principle of first come last go- it was contended that petitioner has been removed without following principle of natural justice and

without serving a notice upon her- held, that serving notice prior to disengagement of petitioner would have served no purpose as she has not been removed for any misconduct - purpose of issuance of notice is to enable a person to place on record suggestion justifying his continuation- order has been passed on the basis of policy by adopting the principle of first come last go- petition dismissed. (Para-6 to 12) Title: Hira Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others Page-1247

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Revised work programme submitted by the Contractor

in respect of package-I has been reviewed - soft copy of the same has been sent by the contractor, which would be sent for approval of the employer - direction issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla and other Departments to take immediate steps so that building is demolished after following due process of law- Executive Engineer directed to remove the transformer from its present place, install it in the vicinity so that the work does not hamper- respondents directed to ensure smooth flow of traffic- Contractor directed to maintain the road properly- Superintendent of Police Shimla directed to take all steps to ensure smooth flow of traffic- further direction issued to file fresh report. Title: Court on its own motion Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (D.B.) (CWPIL No.8480 of 2014) Page-2235

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- SDM made a statement that no construction will be raised on the side of the water body- photographs of water body shows that it is filled with water, it appears to be in a very dilapidated condition and is covered with bushes from all around- respondents stated that they have undertaken a project to clean the water bodies- direction issued to grant fund to preserve the water bodies in Nurpur town and adjoining area in lower Shivalik hills- further direction issued to respondents No. 1 to 3 to release the fund of Rs. 20,000,00/- to respondent No. 5 -respondent No. 5 directed to restore the water body to its original state. (Para-1 to 7) Title: Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others Page-2213

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- State of Himachal Pradesh created a new gram panchayat by de-linking two villages from Gram Panchayat Majholi- new panchayat ghar was to be constructed at Masreena- construction work was started but was stopped by District

Panchayat Officer on a complaint made by Minister- matter was referred to Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)- Gram Sabha was convened and it was decided by majority that construction would be made at ‗Dobha‘ instead of Masreena as decided earlier- Secretary passed an order that Gram Panchayat will convene an extra ordinary general meeting for deciding the headquarter of the Gram Panchayat - if the Gram Sabha decides to fix the headquarter at Sub-village, Masreena or any other location within the boundary of village, Bandal, then Gram Panchayat could immediately take up construction of Panchayat Ghar at the location- if some other village was decided, then the recommendations of the Gram Sabha may be sent to the State Government to

decide the headquarter- aggrieved from the order, present writ petition was filed- held, that order was passed by Secretary for resolving the controversy as per popular choice of the people living in Gram Sabha area- it was rightly recorded that location of head quarters could be as per wish of people - direction issued to Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, to convene general/joint meeting of members of Gram Sabha in presence of Sub-Divisional Magistrate of the respective area to ascertain their wish . (Para-7 to 13) Title: Dev Raj and Anr. Vs. State of H.P. and Ors. Page-1914

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- State promulgated a policy for engaging teachers through School Management Committees on period basis in Elementary/Higher Education department of Himachal Pradesh for tribal/difficult areas- as per policy, permanent resident of

- 15 -

the Panchayat where the Primary/Middle School Located will be awarded 10 marks for the Post Graduate Teacher- petitioner challenged the policy- held, that State has made a classification for giving preference to residents for the Primary and Middle School by awarding proportionate marks out of 10 marks- the purpose of classification is to appoint teachers of nearby area- posts are temporary posts and the policy has been framed to make the teachers available in remote area schools, till the regular teachers are appointed- writ petition dismissed. (Para- 10 to 13) Title: Chaman Lal & another Vs. The State of H.P. & others Page-1968

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226- Writ petitioner was charge sheeted and was found guilty – major penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon him- an appeal was preferred before Executive Council, who passed the order of removal- held, that Executive Council is not an authority as per first ordinance of H.P. University, 1973 - penalty was passed by the Executive Council without any jurisdiction. (Para-4 to 8) Title: Himachal

Pradesh University & others Vs. Bansi Ram Thakur (D.B) Page-1575

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226—Petitioner was appointed as Deputy Manager- he served at different places -he was transferred and posted in Regional Office, Dehradun- aggrieved from the order, a writ petition was filed pleading that his transfer was in violation of the transfer policy and is a result of colourable exercise of powers by the respondents- held, that transfer is an incidence of service and no individual has any right to remain posted/transferred at a particular place of his choice- order of transfer needs not to be interfered with except in a case of mala fides- petitioner remained posted in Shimla for more than 8 years- petitioners have no right to remain in Shimla- respondent is constructing three projects in Uttarakhand and no Senior Executive (P&A) is posted - petitioner was transferred in these circumstances - this shows that transfer is in exigency of service and transfer cannot be said to be punishment- petition

dismissed. (Para-10 to 21) Title: Satish Chandra Mishra Vs. Union of India & Others (D.B.) Page-2072

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971- Section 10- Petitioner was appointed as Language Teacher against a sanctioned post on Parents Teacher Association basis- her services were terminated- a writ petition was filed in which a direction was issued to respondent No.1 to look into the case of the petitioner and to take appropriate action in accordance with the law- however, no action was taken- direction was issued to comply with the order within a period of 6 weeks if already not complied with- held, that appointment of the petitioner was bad as she was not qualified- action was taken and the comments were called from Deputy Director Elementary Education but the case of the petitioner was not recommended- petition dismissed being devoid of any merits. (Para-12 to 16) Title: Sunita Kumari Vs. P.C. Dhiman & & Another (D.B.) Page-1629

„E‟

Employees Compensation Act, 1923- Section 22- Claimants filed a petition pleading that deceased was engaged as driver on wages of Rs. 4,000/- per month, which was enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- per month – he fell ill at Pathankot and was taken to Chandigarh, where he died- petition was allowed- deceased was employed with the respondents No. 5 and 6- he fell ill during the course of employment- winters in Srinagar during the months of January-February are severe-

Commissioner rightly concluded that the deceased had died due to occupational disease - income of the deceased was to be calculated as per existing explanation at Rs. 4,000/- per month- Insurance Company is liable to pay interest on the amount – claimants would be entitled to Rs. 4000-2000 = Rs. 2000x 216.91 = Rs. 4,33,820/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of death till realization. (Para-12 to 32) Title: National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dhani Devi and others Page-1776

„H‟

H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1987- Section 163- Plaintiff was granted nautor land by D.C., Kangra- he deposited the requisite compensation for the trees but the mutation was rescinded- plaintiff

- 16 -

spent Rs. 50,000/- for making the land cultivable and Rs. 40,000/- for the construction of a house and cattle-shed – proceedings under Section 163 of H.P. Land Revenue Act were initiated against the plaintiff- plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit land – suit was opposed by stating that no lease was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff- he had encroached upon the suit land- suit was decreed by the trial Court- an appeal was preferred, which was dismissed- held, in appeal that plaintiff has proved that land was allotted to him initially by gram panchayat and thereafter by the state as nautor - plaintiff had also deposited the requisite compensation- procedure provided under Kangra Nautor Rules was followed - it was not established that there was a misrepresentation on the part of the plaintiff- Appellate Court had wrongly reversed the judgment of trial Court- appeal accepted and judgment of Appellate Court set aside. (Para-9 to 18) Title: Jaisi Ram Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh Page-1544

H.P. Public Premises Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971- Section 5- Eviction

proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for encroaching upon the government land declared to be a wild life sanctuary- an appeal was filed, which was dismissed- held, that petitioner had refused to join the proceedings despite the issuance of notice- petitioner had encroached upon the government land- - Court is bound to act with greater seriousness, care and circumspection where an encroacher, illegal occupant or a land grabber of public property seeks to protect his possession by prolonging the litigation - petitioner had prolonged the litigation for more than 6 years and had managed to illegally squat over prime property- eviction ordered to be made at the expenses of the petitioner - petition dismissed. (Para-7 to 15) Title: Sandhya Vs. State of H.P and another (D.B.) Page-1737

H.P. Public Premises Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971- Section 5- Petitioner was ordered to be ejected from the land in the Forest- an appeal was preferred, which was dismissed-

it was contended that land belongs to State of Himachal Pradesh and not to the Forest department – held that State land has been classified as forest land- officers of the forest department can initiate and commence the proceedings under the relevant statute - unoccupied land is presumed to be the government land – burden is upon a person to establish his title to the same- petitioner has failed to prove the title and he was rightly ordered to be ejected- petitioner had cut forest land and had planted orchard on the same- therefore, eviction order to be carried at his cost - petition dismissed. (Para-4 to 29) Title: Pancham Chand. Vs. The State of H.P and another (D.B.) Page-1715

H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987- Section 14- Landlord filed an eviction petition on the ground that premises is required bonafide for the purpose of reconstruction, which cannot be carried out without evicting the tenant- building is more that 100 years old and has outlived its utility- tenant is in arrears of rent- he had changed the user from bakery to kabari shop- petition was partly allowed by the Rent Controller- eviction was ordered on the ground of reconstruction or rebuilding, which cannot be carried out without vacating the premises- tenant was also held to be in arrears of rent amount to Rs. 10,900/-- an appeal was preferred, which was partly allowed- aggrieved from the order, present revision has been filed- held, that tenant admitted that he was paying rent to K and S- therefore, they were competent to file the eviction petition- it was not necessary to implead other co-owners- approval of site plan is not necessary for ordering the

eviction- report was filed by the expert that premises had outlived its utility and new structure would give enhanced economic value to the owner of the premises- revisional power can be exercised where there is some illegality and impropriety- there is no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Court- revision dismissed. (Para-12 to 18) Title: Dhani Ram son of Shri Chaudhary Ram Vs. Krishana Prasad son of late Shri Satya Narayan Page-1971

H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987- Section 14- Landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant on the ground that pr