Application seeking correction or modification of an earlier court order that had directed the Tehsildar to execute a sale deed over six marlas of land following a compromise and cheque payment. With the IPH pipes reportedly removed, court found no impediment to executing the deed and no need for correction; application dismissed.
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.
Anoop Katoch vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Cr.MP No.1006 of 2024 in Cr.MMO No.197 of 2021
09.12.2024 Present Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate, for the nonapplicant/petitioner.
Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the applicant/respondent.
By way of instant application, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant/respondent for correction /modification of order dated 02.08.2022, whereby this Court having taken note of the compromise arrived interse parties, directed Tehsildar, Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, to execute the sale deed qua six marlas/113 sq. meters of land, which is part of Khasra Nos. 2304/1770 within a period of one week after encashment of the cheque issued by the non-applicant/petitioner in favour of applicant/ respondent No.3.
Though, in the case at hand, applicant/respondent No.3 has already received sum of Rs. 23 lakh, but yet he is not executing the sale deed in favour of the non-applicant/ petitioner on the pretext that till date, pipelines got laid down by the IPH Department have been not removed, however such fact has been seriously disputed by learned counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner. He states that as of today, no pipes are there, rather same stand removed by the
applicant/respondent himself, which fact has been admitted by the applicant/ respondent, who is present in Court.
While inviting attention of this Court to the reply filed to the instant application on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Kangra at Dharamshala, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that SHO, Palampur District Kangra, after having visited the spot has clarified that IPH Department has already removed the pipes, if it so, there appears to be no impediment, if any, for the applicant/ respondent to execute the sale deed in terms of the judgment, sought to be modified. Since this Court has categorically mentioned Khasra numbers, out of which, six marlas/113 sq. meters of land, is to be transferred to the applicant/ petitioner by way of executing sale deed, there is no necessity for correction/modification of the order.
In view of the above, the present application is dismissed being wholly misconceived.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge
December 09,2024 (shankar)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order dated 02.08.2022 directing the Tehsildar to execute a sale deed required correction or modification?
Anoop Katoch
State of Himachal Pradesh
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
