PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
LAWS(HPH)-1997-5-36
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on May 20,1997

PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.SRINIVASAN,C.J. - (1.)The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his application for permission to purchase land of 5 Biswas. The contention of the petitioner is that no reason has been given for rejecting his application inspite of the fact that the concerned Authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act had made recommendations for permission being granted. In reply, it is stated that the Government has taken a decision in the matter taking into consideration certain reasons, that is, the petitioner is a permanent resident of the State of Uttar Pradesh and is employed in a private firm at Paonta Sahib and has been residing in the Himachal Pradesh for a short while. It is also stated that the land was irrigated and after taking note of the relevant circumstances, the Government has rejected the application. On our direction, a supplementary affidavit has been filed today and it is stated in the supplementary affidavit that as per the entry in the Jamabandi of the year 1992. -93, which is produced as Annexure R -l, the land measuring 13 -02 Bighas is classified as Chahi, that is, irrigated one and the rest of 10 Biswas is classified as Gairmumkin Abadi, under Khasra No. 1367 /208 min area 13 -12 Bighas. The land proposed to be purchsed by the petitioner is out of Khasra No. 1367/208 and therefore, irrigated one. -The supplementary affidavit also refers to the cropwisc position of the land consisting of Khasra No. 1367/208 measuring 13 -12 Bighas for the years 1994 -95, 1995 -96 and -1996 -97 as given in Khasra Girdwari. a copy of which is attached as Annexure R -II.
(2.)Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us was party, in Waheed Ahmad v. State of Himachal Pradesh & anr, C. W.P. No. 1463 of 1993, dated 21.3.1994. In that case the application was rejected on the only ground that the land sought to be purchased was Nehri (irrigated). The Bench held that even irrigated land was held and within the definition of the land -contained in the Act and there is no provision in the Act to exclude such land from consideration The Bench, therefore, quashed the order of rejection and directed the respondent to grant the necessary permission to the petitioner subject to the Rules.
(3.)Learned Advocate General has rightly pointed out that in the present case it is not only the reason for which the application has been rejected. He has submitted that the fact that the land is irrigated is also one of the reasons taken into consideration by the Government and other reasons have also, been considered by the Government before rejecting the application of the petitioner.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.