Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Chaman Lal vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh Collector ... on 28 August, 2015
Bench: Dipak Misra, R. Banumathi
SLP(C) 20925/15
1
ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.20925/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23/02/2015
in RSA No. 38/2015 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at
Shimla)
CHAMAN LAL & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF H.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and
interim relief and office report)
Date : 28/08/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, AOR
Mr. Raghvendra Pratap, Adv.
Ms. Suresh Kumari, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Permission to file the additional documents is granted.
It is submitted by Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, learned Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Chetan Kumar counsel for the petitioners that all the courts below have Date: 2015.08.28 erred in law by dismissing the suit, inasmuch as there is an 17:29:04 IST Reason:
admission by the respondents in paragraph 3 of the written statement to the following effect:
SLP(C) 20925/15 2 “........Forest Department as tenant at will of the above said Khasra number prior to the year 1942-43 and the Forest Department have constructed building on the above said Khasra number at Kasol with compound and quarters by spending huge amount and this fact was duly in the knowledge of the then owner of suit land. It is further submitted that the Govt. of H.P. has transferred the constructed building to the Tourism Department vide notification No.5-107/72-TD (Sect.) and since then the Department of Tourism is in the peaceful possession of the same.” He has also drawn our attention to Jamabandi for the year 1975-76, indicating that his father was the owner.
On a perusal of the findings recorded by the courts below, it is evident that the respondents may be entitled to retain possession also, keep the buildings, but the issue that would arise for consideration in the ultimate eventuality is that if the petitioners are the real owners, what could be the possible relief granted to the petitioners qua the Department of Forest and Tourism of Government of Himachal Pradesh.
Issue notice.
(Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master