Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: jharkhand Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 52 results (0.006 seconds)

Jun 27 2005 (HC)

Niraj Kumar and ors. and Anand Kumar and anr. Vs. State of Bihar

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Jun-27-2005

Reported in : [2005(4)JCR232(Jhr)]

..... kumar stopped him whereupon this informant asked that he and his other friends be allowed to go out. thereafter some scuffle in between them took place and on persuasion and mediation of ved prakash tiwari, the matter was settled. but in the second sitting examination, dhiraj kumar with other associates came there and assaulted him and his friends with rod and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 2005 (HC)

M.P. Registrar and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Mar-10-2005

Reported in : [2005(3)JCR425(Jhr)]

..... were sent to the petitioners but no payment was made and thereafter the complainant-opposite party no. 2 served a legal notice on the petitioners in october, 1994 and accused mediated through common friend to stop legal action by the complainant and paid rs. 20,000/-. thereafter demands were made on several occasions and when no payment of balance amount of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 16 2005 (HC)

Chotanagpur Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors ...

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Aug-16-2005

Reported in : [2006(1)JCR80(Jhr)]

orderm.y. eqbal, j.1. heard the parties.2. petitioner is challenging the order dated 4.4.2005 issued under the signature of secretary, ranchi regional development authority, ranchi whereby the authority refused to sanction the plan on account of non-production of mutation papers and rent receipts.3. mr. roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that production of rent receipts and mutation papers is not mandatory and therefore the sanction cannot be refused on that account.4. from perusal of 5.2 (v)(b) of the modified building bye laws, it is manifestly clear that owner who applies for development sanction is required to submit attested copy of the revenue receipt, municipal holding tax receipts with khesra/holding number or mutation records.5. even assuming that such requirement is not provided in the bye-laws, i am of the opinion that unless the owner who applies for development plan or building plan gets mutation in respect of the land in question and revenue receipt and municipal holding tax receipt are not issued in his favour, the question of sanction of plan does not arise.6. if is well-settled that besides title, mutation is an evidence of possession and therefore even if a person has got a title that shall not be deemed to be the evidence of possession unless mutation is clone and rent receipts are issued in favour of the owner of the building.

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 2005 (HC)

Akhil Kumar Sinha and anr. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Jan-20-2005

Reported in : 2005CriLJ3071; [2005(3)JCR437(Jhr)]

orderhari shankar prasad, j.1. these two applications (cr. revision no. 373 of 2003 and cr. revision no. 481 of 2003) under sections 397 and 401 of the code of criminal procedure (hereinafter to be referred as 'code') are directed against the part of the order dated 29-3-2003 passed in t.r. no. 1299 of 2002 in cr. revision no. 373 of 2003 and t.r. no. 840 of 2003 in cr. revision no. 481 of 2001, both arising out of giridih (t) p.s. case no, 111 of 2000 dated 1-6-2000 and in both the applications, same question of law and facts are involved, hence they are being disposed of by common order.2. facts briefly stated are that the o.p. no. 2 complainant filed a complaint case in the court of chief judicial magistrate, giridih and the complaint case was sent to the p.s. concerned under section 156(3) of the code for institution and investigation of the case and on the basis of which, police registered a case being giridih (t) p.s., case no. 111 of 2000 under sections 406/408/409/466/468/477/120b of the indian penal code against the petitioner and others. the fact which emerged from the complaint case is that o.p. no. 2 bhuneshwar yadav had purchased 1.16 acres of land of khata no. 73, plot no. 294, 295, 296, 301 and 314 from one daud ali and others by registered sale deed no. 4524/4498 dated 15-4-1991 registered at district registration office, giridih and received the sale deed on 16-3-1996. it was further alleged that after receiving the sale deed, he had made application for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 2005 (HC)

Bhola Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Sep-01-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)BLJR2343; [2005(4)JCR216(Jhr)]

m.y. eqbal, j1. heard the counsel for the parties.2. in this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 14/10/2005 passed by the circle officer, town anchal, ranchi in encroachment case no. 09/01-02 whereby he has directed the petitioner to remove the encroachment over a portion of the land in question comprised within survey plot no. 948, khata no. 1, thana no. 202 situated at village hesal, district-ranchi and also for quashing the order dated 28.05.2005 passed by additional collector, ranchi in encroachment appeal no. 2r 15 of 2004-05 affirming the order passed by the circle office, ranchi.3. case of the petitioner is that the land in question belonged to one smt. ketki sahay, daughter of late krishna mohan sahay from whom the petitioner purchased the said land by virtue of registered deed of sale deed dated 20/9/90. before purchasing the land, the vendor of the petitioner applied for permission of the deputy commissioner, ranchi as required under section 27 of the urban land ceiling act, 1976 in case no. 418 of 1989. it was only after the permission was granted by the deputy commissioner, the land was purchased by the petitioner. petitioner's further case is that after purchasing the aforesaid land mutation was allowed by the circle officer in mutation case no. 1978r-27/90-91 and also by the ranchi municipal corporation in mutation case no. 15/94 and he has been paying all rent and taxes in his name since 1992. in 1996 the petitioner filed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2005 (HC)

Dharma Devi and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Mar-11-2005

Reported in : [2005(2)JCR350(Jhr)]

s.j. mukhopadhaya, j.1. this application has been preferred by the petitioners against the orders contained in memo no. 7312, dated 30th october, 1992 (annexure-4) and the memo no. 7399, dated 2nd november, 1992 (annexure-7), both issued by the deputy commissioner, deoghar. by the first order, the deputy commissioner, deoghar directed the circle officer, deoghar to comply with the order by 31st october, 1992 regarding eviction of the petitioners and for that, if necessary, the superintendent of police, deoghar, will be deploying a police officer along with police force. similar order has also been passed vide the subsequent order contained in memo no. 7399, dated 2nd november, 1992, whereby it was also ordered to depute an execution magistrate, deoghar for eviction of the petitioners from the land in question.2. for determination of the issue, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one.the dispute relates to a land measuring 1,43 acres of mouza todra dih no. 401, touzi no. 1/27, khata (jamabandi) no. 15/10, dag no. 202 in the district of deoghar. it appears that in pursuance of a mutation case being mutation case no. 367/1985-86, the land was mutated in favour of the petitioners, kallashpati devi and other by order dated 17th march, 1986. the 5th respondent, anita ghosh and one anubha ghosh challenged the same in mutation case no. 401 of 1992, on the ground that the order of jamabandi has been made in favour of the petitioners without notice to them .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 16 2005 (HC)

Brajesh Kumar Ray and anr., Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Feb-16-2005

Reported in : [2005(3)JCR464(Jhr)]

orders.j. mukhopadhaya, a.c.j.1. as in all the aforesaid cases, common questions of law are involved, based on common facts, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. the petitioners claim to be the members of a co-operative society, known as navchetan sahkari grih nirman samiti, kamaldih, chas, district-bokaro. they have challenged the entire criminal proceeding(s), including the order(s), taking cognizance of the offence under section 33 of the indian forest act. some of the petitioners have moved before the district judge, bokaro, against the order(s) taking cognizance, by preferring criminal revision applications), which having been dismissed, they have also challenged the revisional order(s) whereas in some of the cases orders passed by the learned judicial magistrate, bokaro, dismissing the discharge petition(s), filed by some of the petitioners, are under challenge.in cr. mp no. 771 of 2003, the entire criminal proceeding of bf case no. 17 of 1999 is under challenge; in cr. mp no. 772 of 2003 the petitioners have challenged the entire criminal proceedings of bf case no. 32 of 1999; in cr. mp no. 1558 of 2003 entire criminal proceeding of bf case no. 33 of 1999 is under challenge; in cr. mp no. 1559 of 2003 entire criminal proceeding of bf case no. 18 of 2000 is under challenge; in cr. mp no. 1560 of 2003 entire criminal proceeding of bf case no. 34 of 1999 is under challenge and in cr. mp no. 1561 of 2003 entire criminal proceeding .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2005 (HC)

Mangra Dhobi and anr. Vs. Khedua Baraik and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Mar-11-2005

Reported in : AIR2006Jhar16; [2005(2)JCR491(Jhr)]

n.n. tiwari, j.1. this second appeal is against judgment and decree of reversal, filed by the plaintiff-respondent-appellant.2. the plaintiff filed title suit no. 15/ 86 in the court of munsif, gumla praying relief, inter alia, for cancellation of the sale deed no. 2032/79 dated 10.11.1979 and declaration of their right, title and interest with respect to the property which was the subject matter of the said sale deed and which was fully described in schedule b of the plaint. the plaintiff had also sought for confirmation of possession and alternatively for recovery of possession of the said schedule b property.3. the plaintiffs case was that the land of plot nos. 702, 929, 1336, 1338 and 1430 appertaining to khata no. 48 of village bhargaon p.s. sessai within the district of gumla were recorded in the name of dashrath dhobi son of bahuran dhobi. dashrath dhobi died leaving behind two sons chander dhobi and shalik dhobi. said chander dhobi was married to a lady of village murmu but she died issueless. he then married another lady of village amalia within the district of gumla but she also died issueless then he kept the defendant no. 1 nirsa dhibin for his household work. defendant no. 1 nirsa dhibin, was already married and she had a son and a daughter from sohar dhobi of village konbir and both were alive. after the death of dashrath dhobi ancestral property described in schedule b remained joint in the hands of his sons chander dhobi and shalik dhobi. when chander dhobi .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 26 2005 (HC)

Basanti Kumari Sethi and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Jul-26-2005

Reported in : [2005(4)JCR182(Jhr)]

m.y. eqbal, j.1. in this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 1.7.2000 passed by the commissioner, north chotanagpur division, hazaribagh in transfer permission case no. 29/1992-93 whereby he has rejected the application filed by the petitioners for grant of prior permission for the transfer of the land in question and directed for resumption of the lease hold property.2. petitioners' case is that ganpat rai sethi, their grand father, was granted a building lease in respect of an area of 2.75 acres of land bearing holding no. 87 situated at village, sarlay in the town of hazaribagh. on the death of the original lessee, the lease was renewed in favour of hira lall sethi and panna lall sethi in terms of a registered indenture for the period of 30 years i.e., from 1.4.1978 to 31.3.2008. petitioners' further case is that both the lessees filed a joint application before respondent no. 3 for transfer of 30 decimals of lease hold property in favour of five different persons which application was registered as transfer permission case no. 29/1992-93 in the court of the deputy commissioner, hazaribagh. the petitioner was called upon to furnish the sale deeds for determination of the market rate of the land in question. petitioner said to have deposited 50% of the amount required to be deposited for the purpose of grant of permission. it is contended that the deputy commissioner, hazaribagh recommended for grant of prior permission in favour of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 2005 (HC)

Harish Munjal and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Jan-25-2005

Reported in : [2005(2)JCR56(Jhr)]

orderm.y. eqbal, j.1. in this writ application the petitioners seek direction upon the respondent particularly respondent no. 4 circle officer, ranchi to accept rent and grant rent receipts in respect of the landed property of the petitioner, which was purchased as far back as in 1959.2. petitioner's case inter alia is that their predecessor in interest namely, jiwan lal purchased 2.90 acres of land comprised within plot nos. 1947, 1948 and 1949 under khata no. 79 of mouza booty by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 2.12.1959 which was executed after obtaining permission of the deputy commissioner, ranchi under section 49 of the chhotanagpur tenancy act in misc. case no. 34-r (8) of 1959-60. thereafter, the name of late jivan lal was also mutated in the office of the circle officer being mutation case no. 51-r 27/1960-61.3. petitioner's further case is that although land was legally and validly purchased but the heirs of recorded tenant filed application for restoration of land under section 71-a of the chhotanagpur tenancy act in the year 1990, which was registered as sar case no. 185/1990-91. the said case was contested mainly on the ground of maintainability of the restoration application. the special officer, schedule area regulation, held that the restoration application was maintainable. thereupon, late jivan lal challenged the said order passed by the special officer by filing cwjc no. 2321 of 1991 (r). by a reasoned judgment dated 10.4.2001, this court allowed .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //