A.M.SAPRE, D.Y.CHANDRACHUD
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – Appellant
Versus
SATPAL SAINI – Respondent
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
Mallikarjuna Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh
V.K. Sood v. Secretary, Civil Aviation
State of Himachal Pradesh v. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Shimla
Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu & Kashmir
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms
Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.