close_game
close_game

MP: HC sets aside subordinate judge’s ‘cryptic order’, seeks report on him

PTI |
Apr 05, 2025 08:38 PM IST

MP: HC sets aside subordinate judge’s ‘cryptic order’, seeks report on him

Jabalpur, The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside a lower court’s “cryptic” order in a land-related compensation case and sought a report on the judge.

MP: HC sets aside subordinate judge’s ‘cryptic order’, seeks report on him
MP: HC sets aside subordinate judge’s ‘cryptic order’, seeks report on him

Justice Vivek Agrawal of the HC has asked a District Judge to submit the report on 4th District Judge Dinesh Kumar Sharma, posted at Deosar in Singrauli district, within 90 days.

The HC has directed that an “inspection” of the files handled by Sharma in the past five years during his different postings be done in three months.

“Learned 4th District Judge has failed to read the provision contained in Section 64 of the Act and has passed a cryptic order,” observed Justice Agrawal.

Had the 4th District Judge strained himself to read the provisions under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, such a “cryptic” order would not have been passed, he said in the court order of Thursday.

“Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.08.2024, being cryptic, is set aside. The matter is remitted to the concerned District Judge to decide the application on its own merits within a further period of thirty days,” the HC said.

A land parcel measuring 0.01 hectare owned by Mangal Sharan, a resident of Godwali village in Singrauli district, was acquired for the Lalitpur-Singrauli rail line project.

Petitioner Sharan was aggrieved that the authorities considered the land for compensation but not the house built over it, his counsel Nityanand Mishra told PTI.

As per norms, the petitioner moved an application before the Singrauli collector seeking to be recompensed for the house too, but the official did not take any action, he said.

The petitioner then moved the court of the district judge for relief, the lawyer said.

On August 3, 2024, Judge Sharma rejected the petitioner’s application, prompting him to challenge the decision in the high court, Mishra said.

This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
SHARE
Story Saved
Live Score
Saved Articles
Following
My Reads
Sign out
New Delhi 0C
Thursday, May 08, 2025
Follow Us On