Shri Man Dass vs Land Acquisition Collector And Another on 20 May, 2016

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Shri Man Dass vs Land Acquisition Collector And Another on 20 May, 2016

Bench: Sanjay Karol

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
                    SHIMLA.




                                                                      .
                                                 CMPMO No.76 of 2016





                                                 Decided on : 20.05.2016

    Shri Man Dass                                                     ...Petitioner.





                                    Versus
    Land Acquisition Collector and another                            Respondents




                                             of
    Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? No 1




                     rt
    For the Petitioner          :    Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate.

    For the Respondents :            Mr. Vikram Thakur and Mr. Puneet

                                     Rajta, Dy. A.Gs. for State.


    Sanjay Karol, J. (oral)

Mr. Rajiv Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner has explained the circumstances under which evidence could not be recorded on the date fixed by the trial Court. Even though the witnesses were present, but in the absence of counsel who was in personal difficulty, they could not be examined in Court. As such in the interest of justice, impugned order dated 8.1.2016, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., in C.S. No.45/2013, titled as Man Dass vs. Land Acquisition Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:24:17 :::HCHP 2

Collector, is quashed and set aside with the following directions:-

.

(i) The parties shall appear before trial Court on 17.6.2016.

(ii) Trial Court shall fix a date for recording evidence of the petitioner.

(iii) Petitioner, through counsel, undertakes to of produce his entire evidence on his own costs and responsibility. However, only for official witnesses, services of the Process Serving rt Agency of the Court and that too dasti can be availed by the clients.

(iv) No further adjournments shall be granted.

(v) Hearing is expedited.

With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also, pending application(s), if any.







                                               (Sanjay Karol),
    May 20, 2016 (KS)                               Judge.





                                        ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:24:17 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court