Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The application stands disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
Present:- Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, counsel for the petitioner. CWP No. 476 of 2011 Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate Generals, for respondents No.1 and 2. C.M.P.No. 525 of 2011 Allowed. The application stands disposed of. CWP No. 476 of 2011 & CMP No. 524 of 2011 The case of the petitioner in nut-shell is that respondents No.3 and 5 have purchased the land for the execution of the project in violation of Section 118 of the H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The petitioner has already made a representation dated 10.10.2010 Annexure P-2 to respondent No.6, the copy of the same was endorsed to respondents No.1 and 2. The contention of Mr.Kul Bhushan Khajuria is that till date no action has been taken. Once the violation of the law has been brought to the notice of the statutory authority, some action was required to be taken by them. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to take final decision on Annexure P-2 within four weeks from today. Till the decision is taken, the respondents No.3 and 5 are stopped to undertake the project. Copy dasti. January 21, 2011. (GR) ( Rajiv Sharma ) Vacation Judge.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The application stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 — s. 118.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.