Ram Lal And Another vs . State Of H.P. on 30 January, 2025

0
119

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Ram Lal And Another vs . State Of H.P. on 30 January, 2025

Ram Lal and another vs. State of H.P.

Cr. Revision No. 68 of 2025

30.01.2025 Present: Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Additional Advocate
General, or the respondent-State.

Cr.M.P. No. 387 of 2025

Mr. Manoj Chauhan, learned Additional

Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of the

respondent-State.

No reply is intended to be filed to this

application. The present application has been filed for

placing on record the certified copy of the conditional

order dated 13.09.2024, which was affirmed by the

impugned order; hence, the copy of the order is necessary

for the adjudication of the dispute pending before the

Court. Consequently, the application is allowed and the

certified copy of the order dated 13.09.2024 is ordered to be

taken on record.

Application stands disposed of.

Cr.M.P. No. 385 of 2025

Since the applicant is permitted to place on

record a certified copy of the conditional order dated

13.09.2025 passed by learned SDM Rohru vide order passed

in Cr. M.P (M) No. 387 of 2025; hence, the present

application has become infructuous, and it is accordingly
disposed of.

Cr.M.P. No. 382 of 2025

Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rohru

made the conditional order dated 13.09.2024 absolute vide

the impugned order dated 11.12.2024. He also directed the

petitioners to permit the laying of the sewage line through

their land and in case of failure, to disconnect all the public

utilities including the sewage line, accessibility of water

and electricity. Prima facie, the order dated 11.12.2024 is

beyond the scope of the conditional order dated 13.09.2024.

Secondly, it is based on the inspection conducted by the

learned SDM and not the evidence led before him. Thirdly,

the State could not have been permitted to utilise the

petitioner’s land for laying sewerage without acquiring it

or taking and the order passed by learned SDM depriving

the petitioners of their property except as per the law is

beyond the scope of Section 157 of Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha

Sanhita (BNSS). Hence, the order dated 11.12.2024 passed

by learned SDM, Rohru is ordered to be stayed till further

orders.

Reply, if any, be filed within four weeks.

Cr. Revision No. 68 of 2025

Mr. Manoj Chauhan, learned Additional

Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of the

respondent-State.

Record of the learned Trial Court be

requisitioned.

List the matter thereafter.

(Rakesh Kainthla)
Vacation Judge

30th January,2025
(Nikita)



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here