Partly allowed

Madan Lal v. State

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Mar 2015RSA/13/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed appeal against dismissal of appeal by District Judge in land ejectment proceedings. Found dismissal without examining rights as impermissible and perverse. Remanded matter for fresh adjudication within 3 months.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; matter remanded to appellate Court for fresh consideration of issues within three months.

Madan Lal Vs State — Land Acquisition | Himachal Pradesh HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

RSA No.13 of 2004

¶3

Date of decision :12.3.2015
Madan Lal … Appellant. Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh … Respondents.
Coram:

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶6

For the Appellant : Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate, vice Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate.

¶7

For the Respondents : Mr. R.S. Verma, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the State.

¶8

Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral)

¶9

The appeal stands admitted on the following

¶10

substantial questions of law:-

¶11

1. Whether the findings of the learned trial Court, as affirmed by the learned District Judge, overlooked the fact that the procedure prescribed under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act was not followed in the present case resulting in the miscarriage of justice?

¶12

1. Whether the courts below fell in error in holding that the question of title was not raised by the appellant when it was so raised in the pleadings itself?

¶13

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

…2…

¶15

In the instant case, appellant was sought to be ejected by the State with the initiation of the proceedings under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954. The Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, (Tehsildar) Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., vide order dated 19.9.2002, passed in Case No.9/10 of 2001, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Madan Lal, directed ejectment of the appellant herein from the suit land.

¶16

Such order was assailed by the appellant by way of statutory appeal before the District Judge. Vide impugned judgment and decree dated 17.12.2003, passed by District Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P., in Civil Misc. Appeal No.9-CMA/14 of 2003, titled as Madan Lal vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, appeal stands dismissed. The appellate Court, in the instant case without going into the questions of rights and entitlements of the appellant, has dismissed the appeal which was legally impermissible in law. The findings cannot be said to be legal, in fact, they are perverse. The appellant claims himself to be owner-in-possession over 38 Sqmts. of land over which house stood constructed since the time of his forefathers. As such, appeal on this

¶17

…3…

¶18

short ground alone, is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the appellate Court for consideration afresh of all questions/issues. Parties undertake to appear before the appellate Court on 16.4.2015. Parties also undertake to fully cooperate and not take unnecessary adjournments in the matter. The appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal afresh, by taking into account the entire material, within a period of three months thereafter. Records be immediately sent back.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations, present appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.

¶20

March 12, 2015 (KS)

¶21

(Sanjay Karol), Judge.

Madan Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajender Singh Vs State

Alamgir Vs State

Gian Chand Vs Hans Raj

Vijender Singh Vs State

Kartar Singh Vs Hari Ram

Sohanu Vs Rania