Anil Kumar Vs Deputy Commissioner Kullu and Others

For the Petitioner: Mr. Roop Lal Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4/State.

¶12

Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

¶13

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶14

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 24.02.2023 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in case No.59SDM/Cr.P.C./2022, whereby complaint filed under Section 133 Cr.P.C. having been filed by the petitioner/complainant, alleging therein unauthorized construction on the government land by respondent, came to be dismissed, petitioner/complainant has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order.

¶15

2

¶16

2024:HHC:8291

¶17

Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that complainant filed a complaint against the respondent, alleging therein that he has constructed a wall on the government land, as a result thereof, path leading to the house of the complainant as well as other residents of the area has been blocked.

¶19

Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kullu, having taken note of the fact that dispute is likely to cause breach of peace, issued notice under Section 133 Cr.P.C. to the respondent, thereby directing to take immediate steps to remove obstruction or to show cause as to why order should not be made absolute.

¶20

Pursuant to aforesaid notice, respondent came present before this Court and specifically denied factum of his having constructed wall, if any, on the Government land. To ascertain the factum with regard to construction of wall, if any, on the Government land, Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed field agency to demarcate the disputed land.

¶21

Tehsildar Settlement, Kullu, after having conducted spot visit, demarcated the land and submitted the report vide letter No.524 dated 27.07.2022, specifically stating therein that there is no wall constructed on Government land, as alleged in the complaint.

¶22

3

¶23

2024:HHC:8291

¶24

Tehsildar further stated in report that respondent has constructed a wall in his own land bearing khasra No.3477/2075/2023/1735.

¶25

Though repeated opportunities came to be granted to the petitioner/complainant to lead evidence to substantiate his claim with regard to construction of wall on the Government land at the behest of respondent, however, he failed to do so. In the aforesaid background, Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot be said to have committed any illegality and infirmity while rejecting the complaint under Section 133 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner/complainant.

¶26

Consequently, in view of above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed, being devoid of merit.

¶27

September 09, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge

Anil Kumar v. Deputy Commissioner Kullu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. Deputy Commissioner Kullu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Man Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Dev Prakash and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

SP Singh Vs Kishna Ram

Naina Vs State of Hp

Aditya @Ishu Vs State of Hp

Yogindra Kapoor Vs State of Hp and Another