Dismissed

Deshpal v. Ashokpal and Others

Uttarakhand HC1 Jul 2014C482/561/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous application challenging orders against a petitioner for constructing a slab obstructing a neighbor's drainage. The court found no merit, calling the petition an attempt to evade lower court orders, and directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to remove the encroachment within a fortnight.

What did the court decide?

Encroachment on public path to be removed by Sub Divisional Magistrate within a fortnight; special cost of Rs. 5,000 and dismantling expenses borne by the applicant.

Deshpal Vs Ashokpal and Others — Land Acquisition | Uttarakhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 561/2014 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC)

¶3

Deshpal …….Applicant/Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Ashokpal & Others ……Respondents

¶6

Mr. Shakti Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. None for the respondent.

¶7

July 1 st , 2014

¶8

Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

¶9

Having heard the learned Counsel of the applicant petitioner Deshpal and after going through the judgment of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, concurred by the Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar vide his order dated 19.5.2014, it transpires that respondent Ashokpal resides at the end of the street and the road in front of the house of Deshpal leads to the house of Ashokpal. The petitioner Deshpal constructed a slab/slope in front of his door to the measurement of 7 (length) x 4 (width) x 1 (height) feet so that to hamper the flowing of even the drainage beside the clear/smooth way of the opposite party in village Paniyala Chandapur, P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar. The complaint was made under Section 133 CrPC to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, which was adjudicated by him on 2.7.2013 in Case No. 02/2008, State Vs. Deshpal, directing the Tehsildar to remove the obstacle from the public path as has been stated above.

¶10

Judgment of the Sub Divisional Magistrate was challenged by filing the revision before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge and the learned Judge vide his detailed order dismissed the same.

¶11

¶12

This Court also does not find even the least merit much less a fit case to issue the notice to the respondent and to bother and drag him unnecessarily to the level of High Court.

¶13

This petition is a magic trick to pave the way in order to escape from the two concurrent orders passed by the Courts below. It is dismissed with a special cost of rupees five thousand for the trouble, which the petitioner Deshpal has caused to his next-door neighbour. This special cost shall be paid to the respondent Ashokpal.

¶14

Sub Divisional Magistrate is directed to execute his own order dated 2.7.2013 to remove the encroachment as has been stated above on the public path within a fortnight from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order. SDM will manage to snap the photographs before and after the removal of such encroachment and will send the same to this Court in order to ensure that the order dated 2.7.2013, confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, has been executed in letter and spirit.

¶15

The expenses of dismantling the encroachment will be borne by the encroacher Deshpal.

¶16

If the cost of rupees five thousand imposed by this Court and the expenses of dismantling the encroachment are not paid by the applicant petitioner, the same shall be recovered from him as the arrears of land revenue.

¶17

Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

¶18

This file will be placed again after three weeks enabling the Court to monitor over the issue.

¶19

(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶20

Prabodh

Deshpal v. Ashokpal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deshpal v. Ashokpal 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

Amit Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Smt. Manju Alias Mansi and Another Vs Deelip Kumar

Jeewan Chandra Mishra Vs State and Ors.

Ambuj Chaudhary Vs Rai Bahadur Narayan Singh Sugar Mills Ltd.

Ambuj Chaudhary Vs Rai Bahadur Narayan Singh Sugar Mills Ltd.

Pramod Gupta and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others