Allowed

Baldev Singh Thakur v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Mar 2024CWP/1350/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, quashed an order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate staying proceedings due to alleged joint family land dispute. The court held the order violated natural justice for lack of hearing, lacked jurisdiction over a civil matter, and was passed without applying mind. The authority was directed to re-adjudicate the matter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.12.2022 quashed. Direction to authority to decide complaint afresh after recording statements and hearing parties.

Baldev Singh Thakur Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.1350 of 2023 Date of Decision: 5.3.2024

¶3

Baldev Singh Thakur

¶4

……...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.

¶7

…....Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Advocate.

¶11

For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, for the respondents/State.

¶12

Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate, for the applicant in CMP No. 7911 of 2023.

¶13

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶14

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

¶15

following main relief:

¶16

“i. That appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly be issued and the impugned order (Annexure P-2) dated 29.12.2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of law and justice.”

¶17

2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kullu, while passing impugned order dated 29.12.2022,

¶18

¶19

failed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other affected parties and as such, impugned order being in violation of principle of natural justice deserves to be quashed and set-aside.

¶20

3. Record reveals that a complaint, came to be filed by the villagers of Mashanga to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kullu, alleging therein that road, which leads to their village, has been obstructed by the petitioner. Sub Divisional Magistrate without verifying the authenticity and contents of the complaint and without issuing the notice to the petitioner, proceeded to pass order dated 29.12.0222, whereby it by merely recording that since land in question happens to be a joint land of 13 co-sharers, matter be stayed till the partition of the same is effected.

¶21

4. Having perused aforesaid impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that authority concerned has failed to apply its mind before passing order and in a very slipshod manner that too without bothering to ascertain the factual position of the opposite party, passed the injunction order that too for an unlimited period. There is nothing in the order to suggest that at the time of passing of order dated 29.12.2022, partition proceedings, if any, were pending inter-se petitioner and the complainant. Moreover, complaint (Annexure P-1), nowhere suggests that specific allegation of obstruction of road, if any, was ever made against the petitioner and as such, authority concerned

¶22

¶23

before considering prayer made in the complaint ought to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner as well as other affected parties.

¶24

5. Leaving everything aside, authority concerned before passing impugned order was required to see whether he/ she is competent to entertain the petition, especially when, on the face of complaint, dispute, if any, inter-se parties appears to be civil in nature and in that eventuality, appropriate remedy, if any, is to approach the civil Court.

¶25

6. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this Court sees sufficient reason to interfere and accordingly, order dated 29.12.2022 is quashed and set-aside, with further direction to aforesaid authority to decide the complaint afresh, by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other affected parities expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. Till the time, complaint is not decided by the authority concerned, petitioner as well as other parties shall not obstruct the passage leading to their respective houses. Needless to say, at the first instance, authority concerned would satisfy itself with respect to its jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.

¶26

March 5, 2024

¶27

manjit

¶28

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Baldev Singh Thakur v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldev Singh Thakur v. State of Hp and Another

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

Kishan Chand Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shyam Lal S/o Late sh. Dhani Ram Vs Premi Devi

Tirth Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vaibhav Dhalta Vs State of Hp and Others

Ibrahim Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rahul Vs State of Hp