Uttarakhand High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J., dismissed a petition which was filed before this Court seeking to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Tehsildar to register and decide the application which was filed by him. under Sections 195/340 CrPC for filing false affidavit and committing perjury by certain persons named in the said application.

Petitioner had moved an application under Section 340 CrPC before Tehsildar in mutation proceedings, however, Tehsildar was not entertaining his application.

The Court perused the records and explained Section 340 CrPC and held that after perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 340 it was clear that if the Court concerned was satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, then the Court may proceed in the matter.

The court while dismissing the petition held that before proceeding in the matter, the Court has to form an opinion that an enquiry was needed, the Court further held that it was not for the Court to direct the Tehsildar to proceed under Section 340 CrPC.[Hari Sharan Shankar Srivastava v. State of Uttarakhand, 2021 SCC OnLine Utt 332, decided on 15-03-2021]


Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant ahs reported this brief.

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir High Court:  The case of the petitioners before Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. was that they had filed an application for direction of equal bifurcation/partition of the whole land between the petitioners and the other co-sharers and respondent. 

It was stated that the father of the petitioners during his lifetime had acquired various lands at a village in Jammu. It was also stated that the real uncles of the petitioners who were also co-sharers in the aforesaid property had not taken care of the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners, Mr Sudesh Sharma, stated that the petitioners were co-sharers in the land under different Khasra numbers at that village and they had also inherited the ownership rights of the land situated at the same village after the death of their father and mother. The other co-sharers of the petitioners were influential persons and they had illegally encroached upon the land of the petitioners and despite the above-said fact the respondents were not deciding the application of the petitioners for equally bifurcating/partitioning of the whole land between the petitioners and the other co-sharers. The counsel requested for a time stipulated disposal. 

The Court disposed of the instant petition with a direction to the Tehsildar to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioners as per the rules and regulations governing the field, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [Anju Devi v. State of J&K, 2019 SCC OnLine J&K 410, Order dated 03-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: The writ petition was filed before a Division Bench of Abhinava Upadhya and Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ. where order passed by the Tehsildar, Kairana was challenged.

Petitioner alleged that there was a road accident in front of his house due to which two respondents entered into a dispute with the petitioner in consequence of which FIR was filed against the respondents. Later, a complaint before Tehsildar was filed by the respondents against petitioner alleging that petitioner was involved in the construction of the road on land not belonging to him. Accordingly, Tehsildar had issued a direction to SHO, Kairana to check if the alleged road was constructed. Petitioner had submitted that the above complaint was just to harass him.

Petitioner’s main contention was that Tehsildar, an executive authority could not have passed the above order and in case of any grievance by the respondent the correct forum to be approached was the Court of Civil Jurisdiction.

High Court observed that the dispute raised in this petition was of civil nature and Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to issue a direction to the SHO to interfere with the right of petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order was quashed. [Jagmal Singh v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 109, Order dated 29-01-2019]