Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Page 10 of about 2,907 results (0.014 seconds)

Aug 20 1985 (HC)

Laxman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1986(1)WLN685

milap chand jain, j.1. the appellant laxman singh, his brother ram singh and his mother mst. rampyari were tried for the offence under sections 447, 307, 380/451 read with sections 34 and 109, ipc by the learned sessions judge, merta, who by judgment dated september 3, 1974 convicted the appellant laxman singh of the offence under section 302, ipc and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to a fine of rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. he was also convicted of the offence under section 307, ipc and was sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of rs. 100/. in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. he was also convicted of the offence under section 447, ipc and was sentenced to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. all the sub-stantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. he was acquitted of the offences under sections 451 and 380, ipc.2. the other two accused persons were convicted of the offence under section 447, ipc and were sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment. both of them were acquitted of all other charges.3. the prosecution case, in brief, is that 20 bighas land of khasra no. 16 situated in village parevadi, was in the khatedari of shivbux(deceased) and was in his cultivatory possession. there was a dhani' in the northern portion of the field and shivbux was residing in that dhani along with his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 2005 (HC)

Sobhag Kanwar (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj857; 2006(2)WLC280

s.n. jha, c.j.1. the petitioner along with her sister roop bai filed revenue suit for declaration of their rights and possession over the lands of khasra nos. 29, 72, 75/1 and 75/2 measuring 27 bighas and 14 biswas situated in village chapras, tehsil bundi, by order dated 10th april, 1978 the assistant collector-11, bundi dismissed the suit. the petitioner preferred appeal before the revenue appellate authority which was dismissed on 24th april, 1981. she then filed second appeal before the board of revenue which too was dismissed on 10th october, 1988. she seeks quashing of the said orders. she also seeks quashing of the order of collector, bundi dated 03rd november, 1955 holding that the lands escheated to the darbar/state in terms of sub- section 32 of the bundi tenancy act, 1942 on the death of kishan dan. she also seeks quashing of mutation no. 29 dated 02nd february, 1958 mentioning the name of respondent no. 6 modu with respect to the lands. the petitioner further seeks declaration that the provisions of section 32(a) and (b) of the bundi tenancy act, 1942 are unconstitutional. it is mainly because of the provisions of section 32 of the said act, that the petitioner's claim was rejected by the authorities.2. the case of the petitioner briefly is that her father kishan dan was the khatedar tenant of khasra nos. 29, 72, 75/1 and 75/2 measuring 27 bighas and 14 biswas situated in village chapras, tehsil bundi. he died in samvat 2006 (corresponding to 1949 a.d.) leaving .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2000 (HC)

Rudhmal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR2000Raj160; 2000(4)WLC124

orderarun madan, j.1. by way of this writ petition, rudhmal son of chunnilal (petitioner) has sought as writ of prohibition for directing the jaipur development authority (respondent no. 2) not to:--(i) dispossess the petitioner from 10 blghas of land situated in bir sarkari of jhotwara patwar area tehsil jaipur. (ii) interfere with his possession and cultivation of the said land in dispute without acquiring it in accordance with law, and (iii) demolish his thatched sheds, cow sheds and kacha houses existing on the land in dispute.2. the facts relevant for deciding this writ petition, briefly stated, are that the land of khasra nos. 187 to 191 and 198 of village birsarkari of jhotwara patwar area of jaipur tehsil was purchased in the year 1968 by nanuram (younger brother of chunnilal who is father of the petitioner) from chogan son of kisna modi. the petitioner's case is thatnanuram having no issues/children was living with his elder brother chunnilal and therefore, after death of nanuram his property including the aforementioned land which was in his khatedari tenancy, succeeded/ inherited in the petitioner and his brothers. according to him, though in revenue record, total area of aforesaid six khasras was recorded measuring 27 bighas one biswas but its actual total area at the sites of the land was 37 bighas 1 biswa and in other words, 10 blghas of land (which was also in actual and physical possession of the petitioner and his brothers. since the time of their predecessor .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 1990 (HC)

Ram Kalyan Vs. Motilal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1990(2)WLN609

m. kapur, j.1. the petitioner in this case has challenged the order of the learned sessions judge, tonk dated january 6th, 1989 by which he accepted the revision petition against the order of the munsif and judicial magistrate, niwai dated april 26th, 1988 by which charge under sections 204 and 466 ipc was framed against the respondents. the respondent no. 1 is the sarpanch of gram panchayat khanddawat, while respondent no. 2 is the patwari of this area and the respondent no. 3 is the ward member of this panchayat. it so happened that on the application of the petitioner for mutation of four khasra numbers on the basis of a will executed by bhagwan das the panchayat met on march 23rd,. 1984 and accepted the application and the entry about mutation was made in the record. however, on the same day this entry was crossed and a remark was made on the reverse that rampratap bairwa had moved an application that he was in possession of the three of the four khasra numbers. on this basis, the application of ram pratap was accepted and necessary entries in respect of three khasra number was made by the patwari.2. the order framing charge is an interlocutory order and it has been held in namichand v. state of rajasthan 1987 (2) rlw 632 that a revision against the order framing charge does not the as this is an interlocutory order. on the basis of this is said that the revision court had no jurisdiction to entertain revision and on this ground the order of the learned sessions judge .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 22 2007 (HC)

Madan Mohan Ahir Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : RLW2007(10)Raj3459

khem chand sharma, j.1. these three appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 24.1.1996 passed by the learned single judge who had been pleased to dismiss the three writ petitions filed by the appellant-madan mohan ahir challenging the order of dismissal from the service of patwari.2. it is stated that three orders incorporating separate charges were issued on the appellant-madan mohan ahir while functioning on the post of patwari for 18 years and as per the charges incorporated and served on the appellant, it indicated that he had been alleged to have misappropriated rs. 100/- while holding auction for plot of land and the allegation was that he had undervalued the property and auctioned it at rs. 100/- only. the auction, therefore, was ordered to be cancelled by the competent authority and hence the appellant was legally required to refund rs. 100/- to the auction purchaser. the auction purchaser initially lodged a fir complaining that although the auction had been cancelled, the amount of rs. 100/-, which had been realised from him by the appellant, was not refunded to him. on the basis of this charge, an inquiry was initiated and charge was framed against the appellant alleging misappropriation of rs. 100/-. a separate inquiry was initiated in regard to this charge wherein the appellant came up with the defence that there had been no misappropriation of rs. 100/- as this amount had been refunded to the auction purchaser on the same date. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 1998 (HC)

Smt. Revti and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1998(2)WLC580; 1998(1)WLN86

p.p. naolekar, j.1. since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. respondents no. 4 and 5 tejaram and chawli are the son and daughter of decease plaintiff hanuman and the petitioners are legal representatives of deceased kanaram. admittedly, the property in dispute belonged to budharam, who had two sons narain and baluram. hanuman plaintiff was the son of narain and kana ram was the son of baluram. respondents no. 4 and 5 are legal representatives of hanuman and petitioners no. 1 to 12 are the legal representatives of kanaram.3. hanuman filed a suit for declaration of his title for half share, partition and separate possession of 46.2 bighas of land situated in chak 4 pbm, village padampura, tehsil suratgarh. the suit was filed on the allegations that after the death of budharam, the land devolved in equal share on his sons namely, narain and baluram. narain died in the year 1918 and his half share was mutated in the name of hanuman in the year 1928 and, therefore, he has half share in the property. in defence, it was alleged by kanaram that hanuman went in adoption in the year 1924-25 although the deed was registered in the year 1938 and, therefore, he had no right, title and interest in the suit property. all the three courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff hanuman, against which the present writ petition is being filed, which is registered as s.b. civil writ petition no. 461/94 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 2000 (HC)

Smt. Jaya Ben and 4 ors. Vs. Gaffar Khan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : II(2001)ACC285; 2000(3)WLC690

sunil kumar garg, j.1. all these five special appeals are being decided by a common judgment as they all arise out of same accident that took place on 8.4.1972 and in all these special appeals, common questions of law and facts are involved.2. all these five special appeals under section 18 of the rajasthan high court ordinance, 1949 have been filed by the appellants-petitioners against the judgment dated 9.7.1985 passed by the learned single judge of this court by which the learned single judge while dismissing the five appeals filed by gaffar khan (respondent 1), reduced the quantum of compensation awarded by the motor accident claims tribunal, jodhpur in each case and also dismissed the cross objections filed by the present appellants-petitioners and also held both insurance companies not liable.3. brief facts giving rise to these special appeals are as follows:on 8.4.1972, smt. jaya ben, appellant in d.b. civil special appeal no. 28/1985 along with others namely, kirti ben, appellant in d.b. civil special appeal no. 32/85, smt. rama laxmi, appellant in d.b. civil special appeal no. 33/1985, lalita ben, appellant in d.b. civil special appeal no. 31/1985 and smt. bhanumati, appellant in d.b. civil special appeal no. 30/85 hired a taxi bearing no. rjt 1058 at falna station for going to ranakpur. the owner of the said taxi was gaffar khan (respondent no. 1) and its driver was deva ram (respondent no. 4) and the said taxi was insured with the united fire and general insurance .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 12 1978 (HC)

Praveen Kumar Vs. the Board of Secondary Education for Rajasthan and a ...

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1978WLN(UC)180

..... permitted to appear at the high school examination of the board and no candidate who is less than 16 years of age will be allowed to appear at the intel mediate examination of the board.the petitioners in the case challenged the regulation on the ground that it was violative of the article 14 of the constitution. the argument was based .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1999 (HC)

Vijaypal Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1999Raj131; 1999(2)WLC600; 1999(1)WLN76

orderb.j. shethna, j.1. the present petitioners, who are not the original allottee of the land in question have filed this petition and challenged the impugned order dated 20-8-1998 (annexure p/4) passed by the learned special judge (iii), pong dam oustees, sriganganagar, whereby, the allotment made in favour of original allottee deceased roshan lal on 16-7-1972 has been declared as cancelled in view of the breach of conditions committed by the deceased allottee roshan lal and the land in question has been vested within the state government.2. learned counsel shri sidhu for the petitioner vehemently challenged the impugned order (annexure p/4) passed by the learned special judge on the ground that there was no breach of conditions of rules, 1972 as the land in question was legally transferred by the original allottee deceased roshan lal in favour of present petitioners by way of will. he further submits that as per the will dated 5-5-1989 the mutation entry (annexure p/2) was also made in the name of petitioners on 31-12-1991. he, therefore, submits that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.3. in case of gurdeep singh v. special judge, pong dam oustees matters, sriganganagar reported in 1998 (3) wlc 607 : (1998 aihc 4678), the learned single judge of this court has clearly held that, 'the petitioner, who is transferee, from the oustee allottee did not get any rights whatsoever by such transfer because of the terms of allotment and, as such, void. the possession of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 1970 (HC)

Ratan Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1970WLN819

..... it has acquired the meaning of the place where justice is administered and, further, has come to mean the persons who exercase judicial functions under authority derived either immediately or mediately from the severeign. all tribunals, however, are not courts in the sense in which the term is employed, namely, to denote such tribunals as exercise jurisdiction ever persons by reason .....

Tag this Judgment!


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