SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 143

A.M.SAPRE, D.Y.CHANDRACHUD
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – Appellant
Versus
SATPAL SAINI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Varinder Kumar Sharma, Adv.

JUDGMENT

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

Delay condoned

2. Leave granted.

3. The State of Himachal Pradesh has called into question certain directions that were issued by a Division Bench of the High Court on 23 September 2016. The High Court called upon the State Government to amend the provisions of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 within a period of ninety days. These directions were issued by the Division Bench while allowing a writ petition which challenged an order dated 23 April 2014 of the revenue authorities. The judgment of the High Court by which it set aside the order dated 23 April 2014, and directed the state to attest the mutation by treating the respondent as an agriculturist is not called into question to that extent. The lis between the respondent and the state has come to a conclusion with the following direction of the High Court :-

"Accordingly, impugned annexure P-9 dated 23.4.2014 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to attest the mutation within a period of eight weeks from today by treating the petitioner to be an agriculturist".

The state is, however, aggrieved by the mandamus which was issued by the Division Bench for amending t























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top