Disposed

Tulsan v. State

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Sept 2012CR/84/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged dismissal of her Section 152 CPC application disputing land acquisition compensation. Court noted State's error in utilizing land without full payment and disposed petition directing approach to Reference Court for review.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; petitioner directed to approach learned Reference Court for review of its order; State directed not to raise limitation.

Tulsan Vs State — Land Acquisition | Himachal Pradesh HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

C.R. No. 84 of 2003.

¶3

Date of Decision: 3. 9.2012. ______________________________________________________________

¶4

Smt. Tulsa, daughter of Sh. Mansha Ram, widow Of Sh.Ronki Ram, resident of village Khali (Kumar Hatti Teh. & Distt. Solan. H.P.

¶5

....Petitioner.

¶6

Versus.

¶7

State of H.P. through the Collector, Solan, Distt. Solan, H.P.

¶8

The Land Acquisition Collector, HPP PWD, Solan, H.P.

¶9

...Respondents.

¶10

Coram:

¶11

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge .

¶12

Whether approved for reporting1?.No.

¶13

For the petitioner: Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the respondents. Mr.P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Mr.R.P.Singh, Asstt. Advocate General.

¶14

Dev Darshan Sud,J(Oral).

¶15

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Solan, dismissing her application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (herein after C.P.C.). The petitioner herein had filed the application in proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, inter alia, on the allegations that the land of the

¶16

Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes.

¶17

¶18

petitioner to the extent of about 107 biswas was acquired which was detailed in para-2 of the reference but, in fact, while awarding the compensation, the learned Court has only awarded compensation to the extent of 60 biswas of vacant land and 1 biswa of the built up area.

¶19

Submission made on behalf of the petitioner was that in fact the State is in possession of the entire land i.e. about 107 biswas subject matter of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and that there are a member of co-owners. I find that the learned trial Court as also the petitioner are both in error. This was obviously for the reason that in case the State had acquired 107 biswas of land, it was not open to it to utilize this land without payment of full compensation. The learned Reference Court has also been in error in not considering the settled law while exercise of powers under Section 152 C.P.C. This point is no more res integra which has been decided in Jayalakshmi Coelho Vs. Oswald Joseph Coelho, (2001) 4 SCC 181, Dwaraka Das Vs State of M.P. and another, (1999) 3 SCC 500, K.Rajamouli Vs. A.V.K.N.Swamy, (2001) 5 SCC 37, Samarendra Nath Sinha and another Vs. Ktrishna Kumar Nag, AIR 1967 S.C. 1440 and State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. B.Rangaswamy and others, AIR 2004 A.P. 91. The case of the petitioner is not covered by the parameters of law (supra). 4. In these circumstances, this petition is disposed of with this direction that it will be open to the petitioner to approach the learned Reference Court for review of its order dated 24^th February, 1997. The question of limitation will not be

¶20

¶21

raised by the State before the learned Reference Court considering the fact that the petitioner has been pursuing her remedy under Section 152 C.P.C. and revision proceedings before this Court. Needless to say that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. In any event, the State will not raise the question of limitation as it cannot exercise any piratical right in taking over the land of the petitioner without payment of compensation. Petition is disposed of. On the objection that other co-owners are necessary parties, it will be open to the State to raise this objection including any other objections in law/on the merits urged. The review petition will be disposed on the settled principles of law governing review.

¶22

Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge on 31^st October, 2012.

¶23

(Dev Darshan Sud), Judge.

¶24

September 3, 2012(R)

Tulsan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tulsan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baru Vs Fateh Singh

Pyare Lal Mehta Vs Rajinder Singh

Kuldeep Singh Vs State

Biri Singh Vs Kamal Dev

Hoshiar Singh Vs State

Sukhdev Singh Vs State