Himachal Pradesh High Court
Gram Panchayat Mawa Sindian vs Jagdish Singh And Ors on 1 January, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CMPMO No. 476 of 2020
Decided on 1.1.2021
.
__________________________________________________________________
Gram Panchayat Mawa Sindian .....Petitioner
Versus
Jagdish Singh and Ors. .....Respondents
__________________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the petitioner :
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Amit Jamwal, Advocate, through
Video Conferencing.
For the respondents : Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Additional
r Advocate General, for the State,
through Video Conferencing.
__________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be
passed in the instant case, this court sees no reason to issues notice to
the private respondents and as such, same are dispensed with.
2. In the instant proceedings, precise prayer of the petitioner
is that the Divisional Commissioner Kangra at Dharamshala, may be
directed to decide the appeal bearing No. 26/2011, titled Gram
Panchayat etc. v. Jagdish Singh and Ors, expeditiously, because on
account of pendency of the aforesaid appeal, petitioner-Gram
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Panchayat is facing threat of execution of order dated 31.3.1999
passed by the Settlement Officer, Kangra at Dharamshala. Mr. Sudhir
.
Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while waiving
notice on behalf of the State fairly states that prayer of the petitioner
being innocuous in nature can be accepted.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
material available on record, this court finds that appeal bearing No.
26 of 2011 filed by the petitioner-Gram Panchayat, laying therein
challenge to order dated 31.3.1999 passed by the Settlement Officer,
Dharamshala, is pending adjudication for more than nine years and as
such, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be allowed.
4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is
disposed of with direction to the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at
Dharamshala, to decide the aforesaid appeal, which is pending
adjudication before it expeditiously, preferably within a period of three
months. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to cause
presence of petitioner before the Court below on 8.1.2021, enabling
the court below to fix further date of hearing, if not already fixed. On
the date fixed by this Court, court of learned Divisional Commissioner,
may also consider prayer, if any, made on behalf of the petitioner for
staying the operation and execution of order dated 31.3.1999 passed
by the Settlement Officer, Kangra at Dharamshala. Till the time
application if any, for stay filed by the petitioner against the order
.
dated 31.3.1999 is not decided by the Divisional Commissioner Kangra,
at Dharamshala, execution of order dated 31.3.1999 passed by the
Settlement Officer Kangra at Dharamshala, shall remain stayed. It is
clarified that stay order passed by this court against the order dated
31.3.1999 would remain in force till the time application for the stay is
not decided by the court of learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra,
in accordance with law. Learned Additional Advocate General is
directed to apprise the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, with regard to
passing of the instant order enabling him to do the needful well within
the stipulated time. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed
of.
Copy dasti.
1st January, 2021 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Judge
