High Court reserves judgment on demolition order amid property dispute
Photo used for indicative purpose only. Source internet
Shimla, May 17
In a legal tussle echoing through the corridors of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, the reserved order on a demolition directive issued by a single bench on May 6, 2024. The petition, lodged by two individuals accused one Vishal Sharma into the spotlight as he vehemently denies any involvement in the contested construction.
The Division Bench led by Chief Justice MS Ramachandran Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rawal Dua reserved its judgment on a “letter latent petition” filed by the aggrieved Sharma.
Senior counsel Sarwan Dogra, representing Sharma, argued vehemently before the bench, contending that the demolition order was issued without affording Sharma an opportunity to present his case. Advocate Dogra underscored the lack of due process, emphasizing that the court’s decision encroached upon a property belonging to the Brahmo Samaj, founded by the eminent social reformer Rajaram Mohan Roy, without considering Sharma’s defense.
The crux of Sharma’s contention lies in the ongoing litigation pertaining to the property’s ownership, currently before a civil court.
The Division bench indicated that it would not passed any order to restrain the Shimla MC raging unauthorised property on the said premises stating that court couldn’t intervene in the domain of civic body.
The bench said that since petitioner claimed before the court that he didn’t indulge in any illegal construction therefore court may come in his rescue if necessary while disposing the matter.
About the Author
The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.
1 thought on “High Court reserves judgment on demolition order amid property dispute”