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

1970 Supreme(Del) 95

M.R.A.ANSARI, O.M.PRAKASH
MOHAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DELHI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.SITA RAM, CHABILDAS

Om Prakash. J.

( 1 ) THE main question, in this writ petition filed by forty-five stall-holders of village Pandoh,tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, is whether section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the Himachal Act), is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The circumstances in which this question has arisen are as under :-

( 2 ) THE Deputy Commissioner, Mandi had issued notices to the petitioners to demolish their stalls and to vacate the sites thereunder as they had illegally constructed the stalls on Government lands. The petitioners filed a writ petition, challenging the validity of the notices on various grounds. One of the grounds was that Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. 1958, under which according to the petitioners the Duputy Commissioner appeatred to have initiated action against them was unconstitutional. In the return, filed on behalf of the respondents, it was stated that action against the petitioners had been initiated under section 163 of the Himachal Act, and not under Section 5 of the Punjab Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act. Thereupon, the petitioners pu



















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