Disposed

Baby Thakur v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Mar 2022CWP/397/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a show cause notice for alleged land trespass, the High Court disposed of the matter as a premature approach. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Director, Urban Development, to secure a final view of the matter within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear before the Director, Urban Development, Himachal Pradesh for a final view of the matter within two months.

Baby Thakur Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

ON THE 10^th DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,

¶5

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

¶7

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

¶8

CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.397 of 2022

¶9

Between:-

¶10

SMT. BABY THAKUR WIFE OF SH BHUPENDER THAKUR, R/O VPO CHIRGAON, TEHSIL CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA. PRESENTLY WORKING AS WARD MEMBER, NAGAR PANCHYAT, CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA H.P.

¶11

…..PETITIONER

¶12

( BY SH.V.D. KHIDTTA, ADVOCATE )

¶13

AND

¶14

1. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (URBAN DEVELOPMENT), GOVT. OF H.P. SHIMLA-2. 2. THE DIRECTOR (URBAN DEVELOPMENT) GOVT. OF H.P. TALLAND SHIMLA-2.

¶15

3. SMT. BABITA NEGI WIFE OF SH RAMAN KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P. PRESENTLY WARD MEMBER OF NAGAR PANCHYAT

¶16

¶17

CHIRGAON, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.

¶18

…..RESPONDENTS

¶19

( SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR.NAND LAL THAKUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL, FOR R-1 & R-2 SH. VIRENDER THAKUR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-3)

¶20

This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon’ble

¶21

Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq, passed the following:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This writ petition has been filed by Baby Thakur, challenging the show cause notice dated 30.12.2021 issued to her by the Director, Urban Development, Himachal Pradesh. By the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner has been required to appear before the Director for personal hearing alongwith supporting documents to show her title on the land in dispute on which she is alleged to be trespasser as per the complaint made by Babita Negirespondent No.3

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though he has filed the reply to the show cause notice, but, so far as no decision has been taken by the Director. In our considered view, the present petition has been filed at a premature stage, as the

¶25

¶26

Director, Urban Development, Himachal Pradesh has yet to take final view of the matter. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition, requiring the petitioner to appear before the Director, Urban Development, Himachal Pradesh, who shall take a final view of the matter within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order by either of the parties.

¶27

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed

¶28

of.

¶29

Mohammad Rafiq ) Chief Justice

¶30

( Jyotsna Rewal Dua ) March 10, 2022 Judge (vt)

Baby Thakur v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby Thakur v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajani Vs Hrtc and Ors.

Saksham Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Punjab Singh Vs Hrtc and Anr.

Sarla Mehta Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Gramin Mukt Vidhyalayi Shiksha Sansthan Vs State of Hp through Pr.Secretary

Desh Raj Vs State of Hp