Latest news with #HimachalPradeshHighCourt
United News of India
a day ago
- Politics
- United News of India
HC orders framing of charges against advocate and ex-BJP minister in contempt case
Shimla, June 27 (UNI) The Himachal Pradesh High Court has rejected the apology tendered by counsel Dhairya Sushant and his father, former BJP minister Rajan Sushant, for allegedly making scandalous allegations against sitting judges on social media. The court has directed that charges be framed against both on July 16 in a suo motu contempt petition. The division bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja ruled yesterday that the apology submitted by the respondents lacked sincerity, repentance, or remorse, and appeared to be a tactical move to escape legal consequences. The case arose from a video posted by Dhairya Sushant on Facebook earlier this year, in which he accused a sitting High Court judge of favoritism and being part of a nexus involving drug dealers, lawyers, and judicial officers. In the video, he claimed that justice was being delivered on the basis of face value and that the court had failed to act against criminals despite strong evidence. The court found that both the advocate and his father, Rajan Sushant, had prima facie committed criminal contempt by tarnishing the image of the judiciary and undermining public confidence in the justice system. Rejecting their last-minute apology submitted through counsel, the bench observed: 'We are convinced that it is a device adopted by the respondents to escape the rigours of the law… There has been no genuine remorse or repentance.' The High Court said that the apology was nothing more than a 'paper apology' and said it could not be accepted without compromising the dignity of the judiciary. The matter will now be taken up on July 16 for framing of charges. UNI ML PRS
Scroll.in
5 days ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Five crucial questions the report indicting Justice Varma does not answer
A three-member committee constituted by the previous Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna to investigate allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma has concluded that there is 'sufficient substance' in the charges. On March 14, half-burnt wads of cash were allegedly recovered at a storeroom in Justice Yashwant Varma's official residence in Delhi when emergency services responded to a fire at his home. No police complaint has been filed thus far in the case, in spite of a petition in the Supreme Court requesting the same. On March 22, the Supreme Court constituted a committee, comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia of the Himachal Pradesh High Court and Justice Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka High Court, to investigate the incident. The committee in its report, dated May 3, held that Varma's misconduct was 'serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for removal'. Last week, the report was published by The Leaflet and Bar and Bench. It held that Varma betrayed public trust by allowing 'highly suspicious material in shape of piles of currency notes to be stashed in the store room' of his official bungalow in Delhi when he was a judge at the Delhi High Court. Varma, who was not in Delhi when the fire broke out, has alleged that the entire incident was a conspiracy to frame him. He claims that the storeroom was not part of the main residence and accessible by his staff. He added that on March 14, his family members and staff had not found any cash at the storeroom after the fire was doused. The committee, on the other hand, cited eyewitness testimony and electronic evidence to conclude that not only was half-burnt cash found at the site after the fire, but it was removed by Varma's staff. It also inferred from testimonies and circumstantial evidence that Varma and his family had 'covert or active control' over the storeroom. The committee's recommendation to initiate proceedings for Varma's removal sets the stage for a potential impeachment motion in Parliament, the only constitutional route to remove a High Court judge. However, a close reading of the report reveals that the most fundamental questions about the alleged cash remain unanswered. Play 1 Where did the money come from? This is the central mystery that remains unsolved. The committee's report establishes, through the testimony of at least 10 eyewitnesses from the Delhi Police and Fire Services, that piles of half-burnt Rs 500 currency notes were visible in the storeroom after the fire was brought under control. But after establishing its presence, the report does not identify its source – even though that was one of the three questions the committee had set out to answer. The committee noted that since the cash was found on premises under his 'covert or active control', it was for Varma to account for its source. When Varma offered a 'flat denial and rais[ed] a bald plea of conspiracy', the committee found his explanation wanting. Essentially, the inquiry concluded that since Varma could not prove the money was not his or explain a conspiracy, he must be held accountable for it. The report explained: 'Where presence of burnt cash in the store room is established, it is for Justice Varma to account for the same by either successfully raising a defence of planting of cash in the store room which he failed to do or proving the defence of conspiracy theory by adducing evidence/material that the money/cash did not belong to him but to someone else by disclosing the identity of the real owner of cash. Not having done so, Justice Varma cannot be helped…' 2 Where is the money now? And why was it not counted? The committee noted that despite the discovery of what eyewitnesses called a 'large pile of cash', no official seizure memo was prepared and no panchnama was drawn up at the scene by the police. The committee described the official handling of the scene as 'slipshod'. But it did not hold the police officials accountable for this because its ambit, it said, 'is not to find fault with the action or inaction of the fire personnel or the police personnel'. The committee added that 'quantification of the volume of the currency is of no consequence since it has come from the statements of the witnesses and from the video recordings that there was [a] reasonably large amount of volume of currency in the store room.' Because the cash was never seized or officially counted, its whereabouts are unknown. The committee report relies on 'strong inferential evidence' to conclude that the cash was removed from the scene in the early hours of March 15 by Varma's 'most trusted personnel' – his private secretary Rajinder Singh Karki and his personal staff Hanuman Prashad Sharma and Mohammad Rahil. This conclusion is based on contradictions in their testimonies and their presence at the site from the time of the fire on the night of March 14 onwards. However, this remains an inference. There is no direct evidence – no witness, no video – of anyone physically removing sacks of cash. The evidence at the heart of the case was never secured by the authorities, making its quantity and its fate a matter of speculation. 3 How did the fire start? The report is silent about how the storeroom at Varma's residence caught fire on the night of March 14. The report begins with the series of events that occur once the fire personnel discover half-burnt Rs 500 notes inside the storeroom. But what happened an hour or two before the fire broke out? The report notes Varma's claim that Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, had told him about an incident of 'arson' at his residence – meaning a deliberate attempt to set the room on fire. The news of arson shocked Varma, says the committee report, because 'he was under the belief that it was merely a fire caused by short-circuit'. The committee report added that Upadhyaya had been briefed about the fire by the Delhi Commissioner of Police Sanjay Arora over the phone on the afternoon of March 15. Arora also told Upadhyaya that a report on the incident, which included information about the discovery of currency notes, had already been shared with Union Home Minister Amit Shah, the report said. In a separate report that Justice Upadhyaya prepared for the Chief Justice of India on March 21, he said that Arora had told him about 'an incident of fire that broke out' at the storeroom. The paragraphs following this portion were redacted when it was made public by the Supreme Court on March 22. The committee examined the Delhi Police commissioner, but it does not state what exactly he told Upadhyaya about the cause of the fire in his briefing. Upadhyaya was not examined by the committee. Manoj Mehlawat, a station officer with the Delhi Fire Services, told the committee that he was unsure about the short-circuit theory, which was Varma's initial assumption, according to the committee. 'I cannot tell for sure whether the fire occurred by short circuit, though there was no electric heater in the room,' said Mehlawat, quoted in the report. Sumar Kumar, an assistant divisional officer at Delhi Fire Services, said that he did not look into the cause of the fire as his job was to douse it and prevent injuries. 'I was a little bewildered on seeing the incident and my senior officer had informed me that since high ups are involved, you should not further take any action,' Kumar told the committee. In his defence, Varma later told the committee that there was an explosion in the storeroom 'which is not being examined by anyone'. The committee dismissed this by simply noting that Varma 'took no action' on it. Essentially, since Varma did not approach the police alleging arson at his residence, it did not merit a deeper look. So what exactly was the cause of the fire? The report has no answers. 4 What happened to the CCTV footage? Closed-circuit television cameras installed at Varma's residence could have pointed to the cause of the fire, especially footage from one camera that was pointed at the door of the storeroom. But the committee did not rely on it because the camera's data had been lost – a glaring weakness in the probe. This crucial fact is not stated directly in the report. It is mentioned when the report cites Varma's defence, which referred to a Central Forensic Science Laboratory report dated April 27, 2025, and said that the 'hard disc of the said cameras [at his residence] have been found not to be accessible' and that 'it was not his fault that the cameras were not working'. 'He has also questioned the manner in which the CCTV hardware was retrieved,' noted the committee. The report does not say who retrieved the footage. However, the CCTV cameras were seized on the committee's instructions by the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court. The committee did not explain if the footage was lost and why. 'There is nothing on record why the data was lost on account of the fact that the CCTV camera was sealed since the committee had called for the said hardware,' it said. In short, the committee could not study the CCTV footage to probe the case. Varma too questioned whether the camera hardware had been 'properly sealed', because without the footage, 'his defence was lost'. The committee rejected this view because it believed that Varma had 10 days between the fire and the seizure of the cameras to 'preserve, analyse and scrutinise' the footage – something he apparently did not do. 5 Did the committee find anything on Varma's phone? The committee's report confirmed that mobile phones belonging to Varma, his staff and officials at the scene were seized for forensic examination. The report meticulously analysed call data records, noting, for instance, a 230-second call between Varma and Karki at 1.23 am on the night of the fire. This is used to establish that Varma was in close communication with his staff. But the report is silent on the content of any communication. There is no mention of any incriminating message, photo or data recovered from Varma's personal phone that would directly link him to the cash or a cover-up.
Time of India
21-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Tenant eviction: After more than 10 years fight a landlord wins eviction case on ground of rebuilding of house property; Know how
How did this case start? August 11, 2008: Landlord filed a rent petition for eviction oftenant on the ground of bona fide requirement for the purpose of rebuilding/re-construction after demolition of existing building which was not possible without the premises being vacated. Landlord filed a rent petition for eviction oftenant on the ground of bona fide requirement for the purpose of rebuilding/re-construction after demolition of existing building which was not possible without the premises being vacated. June 30, 2011: The said petition was allowed by a court order which recognised the need of the landlord as a bona fide need. However, the court ordered that eviction of the tenant from the premises will be carried out only on production of duly sanctioned plan by the landlord before the executing court. The said petition was allowed by a court order which recognised the need of the landlord as a bona fide need. However, the court ordered that eviction of the tenant from the premises will be carried out only on production of duly sanctioned plan by the landlord before the executing court. July 3, 2012: Tenant filed an appeal against this order. The appellate authority said that until the case's trial is over, the tenant should deposit the rental amount with the rent controller which will be disturbed to the landlord subsequent to the outcome of the trial. Tenant filed an appeal against this order. The appellate authority said that until the case's trial is over, the tenant should deposit the rental amount with the rent controller which will be disturbed to the landlord subsequent to the outcome of the trial. October 4, 2012: The tenant filed a revision petition. The revised petition was dismissed with clarification that it shall be open to the tenant to apply for re-entry into the building in accordance with proviso to clause (c) of Section 14(3) of the Rent Act read in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hari Dass Sharma's case and judgment of the High Court in Civil Revision No. 49 of 2006. The tenant filed a revision petition. The revised petition was dismissed with clarification that it shall be open to the tenant to apply for re-entry into the building in accordance with proviso to clause (c) of Section 14(3) of the Rent Act read in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hari Dass Sharma's case and judgment of the High Court in Civil Revision No. 49 of 2006. July 8, 2013: The tenant's special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The tenant's special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court. June 30, 2014: The tenant again filed an application before the rent controller and this time also the case was dismissed. What does Section 14(3)(c) of the Rent Act mean? What did the Himachal Pradesh High Court say about tenant's rights in re-built properties? So far right of re-induction or to re-entry shall be subject to and have adherence to all provisions of law applicable and prevailing at relevant point of time for such re-entry including determination of fair rent or rent mutually agreed between the parties as well as proposed user and utilization of the property by the landlords. The right to re-entry of the tenant has been granted in the Act itself. However, such right definitely is not to be an absolute right, as the Courts have to determine the same keeping in view of the given facts and circumstances of the case including the purpose for which reconstruction/rebuilding of the premises has been proposed and permitted, and also keeping in view the bona fide requirement of the landlord. In case premises after rebuilding/reconstruction is to be rented, then definitely tenants shall have right to re-entry/re-induction in the premises, in accordance with law, as recorded herein. For example, if premises is ordered to be vacated for bona fide requirement of the owner to utilize the premises in better way by converting the residential building into a commercial complex, in such eventuality, tenant living in residential premises may not claim re-entry or re-induction in the newly constructed commercial complex for residential accommodation. Similarly, there may be a case where the landlord intends to expand his business and shall have a requirement of more space for commercial activity by rebuilding/ reconstructing the premises. In such eventuality also, it may not be justified to impose a tenant upon him causing curtailment of his plan of extension of his business. In a given case, a building may be proposed to be reconstructed or rebuilt for own residential purpose with no proposal to let it out. In such eventuality, a tenant cannot be thrusted upon the owner of the premises by way of re-induction or re-entry in a house particularly designed and constructed in a manner that there is no scope for letting out a portion thereof as existence of any other family in such premises may cause interference in privacy. Such re-entry/re-induction shall amount to depriving a person from his right of full enjoyment of his property for no fault on his part, but for the only reason that he or his predecessor had provided rented accommodation to someone in the past, as per circumstances prevailing at that time.' Himachal Pradesh High Court final judgement Proviso on the basis of which tenant is claiming direction for construction of building within a time frame and right of re-entry, provides therein re-entry/reinduction on new terms of tenancy, on the basis of mutual agreement between the landlord and tenant in the premises in re-built building. Therefore, for invoking this proviso, there must be a rebuilt building and new terms of tenancy finalised on the basis of mutual agreement between landlord and tenant. In present case, there is nothing on record that premises in question has been rebuilt and landlord has decided to utilize by renting out the same on certain new terms or any mutual agreement between landlord and tenant has been arrived at on the basis of new terms of tenancy or any other person have been inducted by landlord as tenant, avoiding the previous tenant. Right to re-entry has been given to bonafide tenants, who have no other option to have shelter, except the building in reference proposed to be re-built, but not a person who has no business or no cause to continue the tenancy, particularly after retirement when he has started residing in a different township/village. It is further noticeable that Supreme Court has directed to handover the possession by tenant to the landlord on or before 30.6.2014, whereas application seeking direction to the landlord was preferred prior to vacating the premises, which was and is not maintainable because before vacation of the premises by tenant, there was no question of initiating/commencing re-building/re-construction by the landlord. What precedent does this judgement set for tenants and landlords? Since 2008, a landlord had been battling in various courts to evict a tenan t and finally he won the eviction case on April 22, 2025 when the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the tenant 's appeal and ordered him to vacate the landlord's High Court ruled in favour of the landlord by saying that a tenant's right to re-enter a landlord's property (post rebuilding/reconstruction) is not absolute and is based on mutual agreement and the purpose of reconstruction of the tell you in a brief about this case, it started when the landlord wanted to renovate his house by re-building it and wanted his tenant to move out. But the tenant was not ready to move out of the house and thus in 2008, the landlord filed an eviction the hearing of the eviction suit, the landlord proved his bona fide need for rebuilding/re-construction of the property and won the case. But the tenant did not give up and filed an appeal in the High Court and even a special leave petition in the Supreme Court of India. Both the High Court and Supreme Court of India rejected the tenant's appeal at that time. Still, the tenant persisted and filed yet another appeal, this time with the rent controller and then once more with the High hearing this case again, the High Court said that the right to re-enter is granted only on the bona fide requirements of tenants i.e. those who genuinely need a place to stay, like individuals who have no other shelter except for the building that is proposed to be re-built. In the case being referred to here, the tenant has alternative accommodation available but has chosen not to move High Court also said: 'Section 14(3)(c) allows a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant from the premises, if he proves a bona fide requirement of the land being reconstructed. The tenant evicted has the right to re-entry, on the basis of mutual agreement between parties and new terms of tenancy.' However, in this case no new rent agreement was signed and neither new tenancy terms were on to understand how this tenant eviction case went on for more than 10 years and what should landlords and tenants know about a timeline of events according to the order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dated April 22, 2025:The tenant filed an appeal in the High Court soon 14(3)(c): Provided that the tenant evicted under this clause shall have the right to re-entry on new terms of tenancy, on the basis of mutual agreement between the landlord and the tenant, to the premises in the re-built building equivalent in area to the original premises for which he was a tenant.'The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that for this particular tenant eviction case the observations, made in Rattan Chand's case in following paras, are relevant:The High Court also mentioned that the tenant opted to go to court instead of filing an appeal with the rent controller appellate authority, but since this case has been pending since a long time, the High Court decided to hear this case once 'Conjoint reading of various orders passed in present matter, some of which have been upheld by the Supreme Court, with judgment of Hari Dass Sharma's case and Civil Revision No. 49 of 2006, decided on 8.7.2013, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the plea taken by the tenant seeking direction to the landlord in present matter and thus there is no illegality or impropriety in impugned order.'We have asked various lawyers about what precedent does this judgement set for tenants and landlords; here's what they said:This judgment sets a clear precedent that the right to re-entry under Section 14(3)(c) of the Rent Act is not absolute. It affirms that such a right can only be exercised by a bonafide tenant/s who has no other option to have shelter/carry on business except the building in reference proposed to be re built, in the event the premises has been reconstructed and both parties have mutually agreed on the new terms in respect of tenancy of new such right to re-enter the new premises in the reconstructed building can be considered keeping in mind the landlord's purpose for re-construction,the landlord's bonafide requirement and that such right of re entry given to tenant does not deprive the landlord from his right to enjoy his right to re-entry is never absolute, and the criteria for granting re-entry must be strict. Prior to awarding the right of re-entry, several important factors will be assessed, such as determining (i) the reasonable rent for the space and (ii) the landlord's suggested use of the space. This ruling is consistent with the ratio established in several previous cases, which makes it evident that only bone fide tenants are entitled to re-entry. Before granting a tenant re-entry or re-induction, the landlord's needs and the intended use of the building must be considered. This ruling established stringent criteria that must be met before allowing a tenant to re-enter the judgment sets a precedent that strengthens the conditional nature of a tenant's right to re-entry under Section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, and emphasizes judicial discretion in balancing tenant and landlord rights based on case-specific ruling clarifies that the right to re-entry under Section 14(3)(c) is not absolute but conditional upon: existence of a rebuilt agreement between the landlord and tenant on new terms of aligns with the statutory language of the proviso and ensures that tenants cannot demand re-entry in the absence of a reconstructed building or without agreeing to new tenancy terms. The court's dismissal of the tenant's application due to the lack of a rebuilt structure and mutual agreement sets a clear standard for future judgment introduces a practical consideration that the right to re-entry is intended for tenants who genuinely require the premises for shelter or use. The court noted that the tenant, having relocated to Kandaghat after retirement, no longer had a bona fide need for the premises in Shimla. This sets a precedent that courts may evaluate the tenant's actual need for re-entry, particularly when they have alternative accommodation, to prevent misuse of the statutory court's finding that the tenant's son had no right to claim re-entry establishes that the right to re-entry is personal to the original tenant and cannot be transferred to third parties, such as family members, without the landlord's consent. This protects landlords from unauthorized claims by judgment holds that applications for re-entry or directions to the landlord to commence construction are not maintainable before the tenant vacates the premises. This sets a procedural precedent that tenants must first comply with eviction orders before seeking re-entry, ensuring that landlords are not burdened with premature court's decision to entertain the revision petition under Section 24(5) of the Act, despite the availability of an appellate remedy, highlights the High Court's discretionary power to pass such orders as it may deem fit on the legality or propriety of orders or proceedings under the ruling sets an important judicial precedent by interpreting Section 14(3)(c) in a tenant-landlord conflict where expectations of re-entry post-reconstruction were neither recorded nor mutually agreed. The Himachal Pradesh High Court has now clarified that post-reconstruction possession rights must flow from either a specific court direction, an undertaking by the landlord, or a written agreement. Absent these, the landlord is under no statutory obligation to reinstate the judgment aligns with the broader judicial trend of respecting negotiated rights over implied assumptions, especially in landlord-tenant law. It serves as a cautionary precedent for tenants relying on equitable re-entry without formalized consent. Practically, it encourages both landlords and tenants to document exit and re-entry terms at the time of eviction or court proceedings to avoid prolonged decision may influence rent control jurisprudence in other states, especially where similar provisions exist under state-specific tenancy laws, and could guide lower courts in adjudicating similar Himachal Pradesh High Court made it clear that the right of a tenant to re-enter the premises after eviction due to reconstruction is not automatic or unconditional. While the law (specifically, Section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987) allows for a possibility of re-entry, it does so only on the basis of mutual agreement between the landlord and the tenant. The Court emphasized that such a right is contingent upon fresh terms being negotiated and accepted by both parties post-reconstruction. This ruling dispels the notion that tenants have a statutory right to reclaim the property in all the Act, the judgment reinforces the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act and lays down a precedent: the right to re-entry after reconstruction is intended solely for bona fide tenants who genuinely require the re-built premises for shelter. Consequently, the right to re-entry is a conditional entitlement, granted based on a demonstrable need for shelter, thus preventing the imposition of a tenant on a landlord when the tenant exhibits no genuine requirement to continue the tenancy.
United News of India
19-06-2025
- Health
- United News of India
Himachal HC quashes NOC rejection, allows doctor to join Super Specialty Course
Shimla, June 19 (UNI) In a significant judgment benefiting medical professionals, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed the state government's decision to deny a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to Dr. Pankaj Sharma, a Senior Resident at Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Government Medical College (PJLNGMC), Chamba, for pursuing a super specialty course in Medical Oncology. Justice Sandeep Sharma, in an order passed on June 17, directed the state authorities to issue the NOC and release Dr. Sharma's original MBBS degree by 12 noon on June 18, 2025. The court further allowed the petitioner to join the course at Paras Hospital, Punjab, on the condition that he deposits Rs 40 lakh as bond money within a week and furnishes a written undertaking. Dr. Sharma, currently serving as a Tutor Specialist/Senior Resident in Chamba, had applied for an NOC to join the Diplomate of National Board Super Specialty (DNB SS) course after clearing the national entrance examination. However, his request was denied by the Director of Health Services on the ground that he had not completed the mandatory one-year field posting after his postgraduate studies. The court held that Dr. Sharma had already served more than one year and nine months across different postings, including Chamba and Nahan. It observed that under the amended PG policy, the field posting requirement is waived for doctors serving in new government medical colleges. The judge added that denying the NOC on the basis of doctor shortage could not override the petitioner's right to career advancement. Citing earlier verdicts, including Ajay Kumar Chauhan v. State of HP and Lovdeep Singh case, the court reiterated that unwilling employees cannot be forced to serve, and bond terms must allow for either service or financial compensation. The court clarified that if Dr. Sharma fails to rejoin government service after the course or defaults on his bond terms, the deposited amount would be forfeited without interest, and legal action may follow. This order is expected to guide similar cases pending before the High Court and marks a balancing act between individual aspirations and state service obligations. UNI ML RN
Time of India
08-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Teachers protest land transfer, urge Himachal Pradesh CM Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu to withdraw SC plea
KULLU: The teachers' association of Himachal Pradesh Agriculture University, Palampur, has urged Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu to withdraw a Special Leave Petition (SLP) the state govt recently filed in the Supreme Court . This petition challenges the stay order by the Himachal Pradesh High Court on the transfer of 112 hectares of university land to the Tourism Department. In a letter to the CM, the Himachal Pradesh Agricultural University Teachers' Association (HPAUTA), which has been opposing the land transfer for the proposed tourism village, stated that this project by the state govt would jeopardise agricultural education and research in this premium agricultural university. According to the Association, the govt should withdraw the SLP so that the university's academic, research, and extension work is not adversely affected. Professor Janardan Singh, the Secretary of HPAUTA, told TOI that the university land is meant solely for academic and research purposes, not for commercial use. 'The land transfer would not only halt major ongoing research projects, including those funded by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), but also hinder the university's future expansion as no land would be left for new colleges, departments, or student facilities. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 日本の高収入建設職種（2025年）：一覧を見る 建設作業員 | 検索広告 Undo The proposed tourism village project would also weaken the academic mission of the agricultural university,' said Prof Singh. He mentioned that the state govt's move to approach the SC also raised several questions about its intent. 'Why is the govt in such a hurry to establish a tourism village within the university campus when several hectares of land under various departments of the Himachal Pradesh govt lie unused? The state govt is unnecessarily putting the future of a premium institute of learning at risk,' added Prof Singh. Despite protests and stiff opposition from teachers and students, the state govt last year transferred 112 hectares of university land to the Tourism Department for developing its proposed tourism village. Challenging the state govt's land transfer, the HPAUTA approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The HC in August last year put a stay on the land transfer, and challenging the stay order, the state govt filed an SLP in the SC in March this year. Established in 1978, Himachal Pradesh Agriculture University, Palampur, in Kangra district was renamed Chaudhary Sarvan Himachal Pradesh Agriculture University in 2001. The university was awarded 14th rank among the Indian agriculture universities by the ICAR in 2019. So far, the university released 179 improved varieties of different crops for different regions of the state and is the first in the country to establish an Advanced Centre on Nature Farming. There are four constituent colleges of the university which impart education to over 2000 students from eight countries and 15 Indian states. If the transfer of the 112 hectares goes through, the university will be left with 277 hectares of land in its Palampur campus, and according to teachers, the university would require more land for expansion in the near future. 'The university land has been squeezed whereas it needs to be expanded and new programmes are required to be started as per the new education policy. There is an urgent need to establish new colleges including the College of Agricultural Engineering, College of Fisheries, College of Agricultural Business Management, College of Environmental Sciences, etc. Instead of providing more land to the university, the state govt is taking away whatever little it has got,' said a university teacher, who didn't want to be named. The state govt announced in November 2023 to set up a tourism village in Kangra district to promote 'local art and culture and to create employment opportunities for the youth.'
