The Court disposed of the appeal by applying the principles and directions laid down in two earlier judgments (RFA No.430 of 2004 and RFA No.100 of 2005) on similar land acquisition proceedings, ruling that no separate adjudication was necessary.
Appeal disposed; pending application disposed; directions of earlier judgments applied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
RFA No. 168 of 2005. Date of decision: 05.09.2017.
| Union of India Versus |
…..Appellant. |
|---|---|
| Ram Swarup and others | ….Respondents. |
| Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ta Whether approved for reporti |
rlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. ng?1 |
|
|---|---|---|
| For the Appellant : |
Mr. Ashok Sharma, Assistant General of India, with Mr.Ajay Advocate. |
Solicitor Chauhan, |
| For the Respondents : | Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sharma, respondents No. 1 and 2. |
Advocate, for |
| Ms.Meenakshi Sharma, Advocate General with K.Sharma, Deputy Advocate respondents No.3 and 4. |
Additional Mr.Neeraj General, for |
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral).
The parties are ad idem that the appeals arising out of the awards passed in similar acquisition proceedings already stand dismissed by this Court vide judgments passed in RFA No.430 of 2004, titled Union of India versus Damodar Dass and others , decided on 16.12.2008 and thereafter in RFA No.100 of 2005 , titled Union of India versus Smt.Upani alias Dev Dassi and others , decided on 28.04.2009.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) 5th September, 2017. Judge. (krt)
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the present appeal requires separate adjudication or can be disposed of by following earlier judgments on similar acquisition proceedings.
Whether the directions issued in earlier judgments apply mutatis mutandis to the instant case.
Whether pending applications require separate resolution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India versus Damodar Dass and othersFollowed¶6
RFA No.430 of 2004, Union of India versus Damodar Dass and others
Union of India versus Smt.Upani alias Dev Dassi and othersFollowed¶6
RFA No.100 of 2005, Union of India versus Smt.Upani alias Dev Dassi and others
Union of India
Ram Swarup and others
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
