Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Roundup: May 8 - May 14, 2023

Nominal Index:Principal Secretary PWD Vs Mehr Chand 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 31Reta Ram Vs Land Acquisition Collector 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 32Vikas @Vicky Vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 33Jawahar Lal (deceased) through LRs v. State of H.P. & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 34Rakesh Kumar Kashyap Vs State Bank of India 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 35Judgements/Orders: Land Acquisition Act | Market Value Assessment Should Be Avoided On Post-Notification Exemplar Sales: Himachal Pradesh High CourtCase Title: Principal Secretary PWD Vs Mehr ChandCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 31The Himachal Pradesh High Court while hearing a series of appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act observed that assessment of market value should be avoided on exemplar sale transactions that have taken place after issuance of notification under Section 4 (Publication of preliminary notification) of the Land Acquisition Act.S.64 Right To Fair Compensation Act: HP High Court Rules Collector Bound To Refer Objections Against Land Acquisition Award To Appropriate AuthorityCase Title: Reta Ram Vs Land Acquisition Collector.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 32The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that in terms of Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Collector has a duty to refer the objections raised against land acquisition award to the appropriate authority."The provision of Section 64 of 2013, Act does not leave any discretion with the Land Acquisition Collector to determine the issue himself. On receipt of an application with objection on any of the ground enumerated above, the Collector has to refer the matter to the authority," Justice Satyen Vaidya observed.Can Rigour On Bail U/S 37 NDPS Act Have Same Efficacy Throughout Trial, Notwithstanding Period Of Custody? Himachal Pradesh High Court AsksCase Title: Vikas @Vicky Vs State of Himachal Pradesh.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 33The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reiterated that the Constitutional guarantee of expeditious trial cannot be diluted by applying the rigors of Section 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in perpetuity.Justice Vaidya observed that the fetters placed by Section 37 of NDPS Act, evidently have been instrumental in denial of right of bail to the petitioner in the instant case. It wondered whether the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be construed to have same efficacy throughout the pendency of trial, notwithstanding, the period of custody of the accused, especially, when it is weighed against his fundamental right to have expeditious disposal of trial.Himachal Pradesh High Court Orders State To Refund "Excess Payment" Deducted From Class-III Employee's Retiral BenefitsCase Title: Jawahar Lal (deceased) through LRs v. State of H.P. & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 34Observing that recovery of payments made in excess by employers is impermissible in law in certain situations, the Himachal Pradesh High Court granted relief to State Education Department's retired employee whose General Provident Fund (GPF) amount to the extent of Rs. 1.3 lakh was withheld.In this regard, the bench referred to the Supreme Court's decision in State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih, which provided a few situations where recoveries by employers would be impermissible in law. Mere Depiction Of Secured Property As Agricultural Land In Revenue Records Won't Exclude It From Purview Of SARFAESI Act: Himachal Pradesh High CourtCase Title: Rakesh Kumar Kashyap Vs State Bank of IndiaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 35The Himachal Pradesh High Court reiterated that the mere depiction of a secured property as agricultural land in revenue records does not qualify for Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act. For the provision to apply, the property must have been genuinely utilized as agricultural land at the time of establishing the security interest, it clarified.Relying on ITC Limited vs. Blue Coast Hotels Limited and others (2018), the bench explained that since no security interest can be created in respect of agricultural land and yet it was so created, goes to show that the parties did not treat the land as agricultural land and that the debtor offered the land as security on this basis.News Updates:Himachal Pradesh High Court Issues Notice In BJP MLAs Plea Challenging Appointment Of Dy. CM, Chief Parliamentary SecretariesThe Himachal Pradesh High Court issued notices to the six Chief Parliamentary Secretaries (CPS), including the Deputy Chief Minister seeking their replies in a plea filed by 12 BJP MLAs challenging the appointment of the Deputy Chief Minister in the state.Issuing notices, the division bench of Acting Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Virender Singh listed the matter for hearing on May 19.

Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Roundup: May 8 - May 14, 2023

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

Tags