Disposed

Tirth Ram v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Mar 2024CWP/1485/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph oral order addressed a writ petition seeking mutation of partitioned land. The Court accepted the Advocate General's assent and directed the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, to decide the petitioner's pending representation expeditiously within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, is directed to decide the petitioner's representation dated 20.12.2023 regarding mutation of land within two weeks, affording an opportunity of hearing.

Tirth Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others — Landlord and Tenant | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.1485 of 2024 Date of Decision: 4.3.2024

Tirth Ram

……...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

¶7

…....Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr.Dixit Sahotra and Mr. Pankaj Choudhri, Advocates.

¶10

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

¶11

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶12

By way of instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of

¶13

the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:

¶14

“a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the Respondents to attest the mutation of partition at the earliest and to update the record of rights pertaining to petitioner as per order of instrument of partition dated 06-12-2020, in accordance with the applicable standards and regulations.

¶15

b. Pass any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and just in the circumstances to remedy the ongoing violation of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty and to uphold the principles of equality and justice”

¶16

¶17

2. While accepting the notice on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that prayer for mutation of the land as detailed in the petition, if not already considered, shall be considered, expeditiously.

¶18

3. Having taken note of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General and innocuous prayer made in the petition, there appears to be no reason to call for reply from the respondents. As per averments contained in the petition, partition proceedings qua the land in question stand concluded, but yet despite there being availability of mode of partition, no steps have been taken by the revenue authorities for mutation of the land in question.

¶19

4. Perusal of representation dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure P- 5), addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, reveals that petitioner has already approached the competent authority, but till date, no possession has been given.

¶20

5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, to decide the representation dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure P-5) expeditiously, preferably, within two weeks. Needless to say, authority, while doing the needful, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other affected parties. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶21

March 4, 2024

¶22

manjit

¶23

(Sandeep Sharma),

¶24

Judge

Tirth Ram v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tirth Ram v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imran Khan Vs State of Hp

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Hp

Diwan Chand Vs Abhishek Jain

Kishan Chand Vs Union of India and Ors.

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

Divesh Katoch Behera Vs State of Hp and Ors.