HIRA SINGH BAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.