Himachal Pradesh High Court
Tikender Singh Panwar vs State Of H.P. & Others on 21 September, 2015
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No. 1920 of 2011
Date of decision: 21.09.2015.
.
______________________________________________________
Tikender Singh Panwar .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others .....Respondents
___________________________________________________
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1
of
_____________________________________________
For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate.
rt
For the respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General
with Mr. Anup Rattan, Mr. Romesh
Verma, Additional Advocate Generals
and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondents No. 1 to 3.
Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Sanjeev Sood, Advocae, for
respondents No. 4 & 5.
Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate, for
respondent No. 6.
Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate, for
respondents No. 7 to 10.
Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate,
for respondent No. 11.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral)
By the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ of certiorari quashing the sale 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:09 :::HCHP -2-deeds with respect to the land, description of which has been given in para-3 of the writ petition and also in relief (i) .
and writ of mandamus declaring the sale deeds as 'benami' transactions and in breach of Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. It is also prayed that respondents No. 1 & 2 may be directed to of conduct inquiry.
2. rtThe respondents have filed reply. The petitioner has filed rejoinder. The petitioner has prayed in the rejoinder that respondents be directed to conduct inquiry of 800 bighas of land without any discrimination.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated at the Bar that Deputy Commissioner, concerned has conducted inquiry, who has prima-facie held that transactions are 'benami'.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondents stated at the Bar that the petitioner has no locus standi to question the sale deeds and the writ petition is not maintainable.
5. We deem it proper to leave all these questions open. It is for the concerned authority to determine whether- the sale deeds have been passed in breach of land ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:09 :::HCHP -3- laws applicable and whether sale deeds are 'benami' in nature?
.
6. The concerned authority are directed to determine the issue/dispute within eight weeks from today.
In case, any order has been made and the appeals are pending, the appellate authority is directed to dispose of of the appeals, as early as possible, preferably within eight weeks from today.
rt
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications.
Copy dasti.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice.
September 21,
21, 2015 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
(hemlata ) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:59:09 :::HCHP