HIRA SINGH BAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Hira Singh Bam
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
C C.CHOWDHRY,J. -
(1.) THE petitioner purchased a house in Nahan, known as the "Rose View", from the ex Government of Sirmur for Rs. 8,000/ on 28 1 2005 B., corresponding to 9 4 1948, and he has ever since been in possession of the same.
(2.) ONE of the terms of the sale deed was that in case of need the Ruler will have the right to repurchase the house for Rs. 8,000/ without any objection by the vendee. On 2 7 1952 the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmur at Nahan served the petitioner with a notice. Reference was made to the terms of the petitioner's sale deed, and he was informed that the house was urgently required by the military authorities. The Deputy Commissioner then went on to say that he had been directed to ask the petitioner to vacate the house before 31 7 1952 and hand over possession of the same to Lt. Colonel Onkar Chand, Commanding Officer Military Station, Nahan. It was also stated in the communication that after handing over possession the petitioner might make a demand for refund of sale price to the proper authorities.
On 11 7 1952 the petitioner made a representation to the Lieutenant Governor through the Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh, contesting his liability to eviction from the house, and prayed that the_ said communication from the Deputy Commissioner be cancelled and his possession of the house not interfered with. The petitioner has vouchsafed no reply to the representation, and as the time limit for vacating the house was drawing near, he preferred the present application under Article 226, Constitution of India on 28 7 1952, complaining that the said action of the Government amounted to an infringement of the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 31 of the Constitution, and praying for the issue of such directions and orders to the respondents as might be just and expedient to prevent the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the property in question. By an interim order enforcement of the said order of the Deputy Commissioner was stayed.
(3.) THE application has been resisted by the respondents, the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Deputy Commissioner of Sirmur at Nahan. Arguments were advanced on both sides on the question of whether the State of Himachal Pradesh, as successor in interest of the ex State of Nahan, was entitled to enforce against the petitioner the said term in the sale deed relating to the vendor's right of repurchase. In the view that I take of the matter, however, it is not necessary to express any opinion on the point. Indeed, in view of a possible litigation between the parties any such expression of opinion will be improper. The only question that calls for determination in this case is whether any fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed to him under the Constitution has been infringed by the manner in which he was required by the respondents to vacate the house in dispute, and, if so, whether the petitioner is entitled to any, if so what, relief.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.