Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1978WLN(UC)12
m.l. joshi, j.1. the petitioner was appointed as ldc on 16th of february, 1945, in the erstwhile state of mewar. on the integration of the state into the united state of rajasthan his services were transferred to the state of rajasthan. it is net in dispute that the petitioner completed 25 years qualifying service on 9-2-70. the petitioner was compulsorily retired on 11-12-72 vide ex. 1 on receiving the not fee of the order of compulsory retirement the petitioner served a notice of demand of justice but did not receive any reply to the notice. he, therefore has moved this court under article 226 of the constitution of india prating for a writ or direction for quashing the order of compulsory retirement (ex. 1).2. the case of the petitioner succinctly put is that the petitioner's efficiency-bar grade was closed but later on by order ex. 2 the petitioner was permitted to cross the efficiency bar from 1-4-68 by order dated 9-10-1971. according to the petitioner this fact is an ample proof that the petitioner's services were recognized by the nor-petitioner no. 2 who is his appointing authority. it has been further averred that from november 1971 the petitioner has been serving under the sub-divisional officer shahpura who has given a certificate to the effect that the petitioner's work under him bad been satisfactory and there was no complaint of any kind against him so far his work was concerned. on the basis of the above averments the petitioner has contended in his petition .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1971WLN59
c.b. bhagava, j.1. this is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18th december, 1965, of the district judge, alwar.2. the plaintiffs are the sons of umrao singh who died on 16th, april, 1962, leaving behind properties which are mentioned at items nos. 1 to 11 of schedule 'ka' annexed to the plaint. before his death, umrao singh by his will dated 10th may, 1961, bequeathed these properties in favour of mst. patashi his wife. the defendants in the suit are mst. patashi, the stepmother of the plaintiffs, prem narain and durgaprasad the other two sons of umrao singh, and mst. ratti devi, anguri devi, maya devi and shanti devi, daughters of umrao singh. plaintiff's case is that until 10th september, 1961, umrao singh and his sons constituted an undivided hindu family. on 10th september, 1961, the plaintiffs served a notice upon umrao singh of their intention to separate and demanded a partition of the properties. however, umrao singh died on the 16th april, 1962, without effecting partition of the properties. plaintiff's case is that the disputed properties were jointly acquired by them and the deceased umrao singh and the plaintiffs are entitled to 20/45 the share in each property. a declaration has been further sought that the will executed by umrao singh in favour of mst. patasshi is illegal and void because none of the properties was his self-acquired property. they have also sought an injunction restraining mst. patashi from disposing of the family .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1970WLN313
p.n. shinghal, j. 1. this appeal by defendant smt. chandra mani against the appellate judgment of district judge, jodhpur, dated april 30, 1962, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents for possession of the suit house and declaring the 'patta' and the gift-deed as inoperative.2. the house in question admittedly belonged to roopram. the plaintiff's therefore traced the genealogy from him in order to show that while they were the descendants of shivrup, prabhushanker was the descendent of shambhuram, prabushanker used to reside in the suit house when he died issueless on jeth sud 7, section 2000. the plaintiffs claimed to be his only heirs. mangilal, who was the sole defendant in the suit (as instituted on november 8, 1948) used to reside in the house from the life-time of prabhushanker. the plaintiffs asked him to vacate the house, but he refused to do so inspite of notice, on the plea that it had been gifted to him by prabhushanker by gift-deed ex. a. 3 dated may 21, 1938 and he had obtained a 'patta' on that basis. the plaintiffs however challenged the gift-deed as illegal and void on the grounds that it was made for valuable consideration and was a grant, in charity, from the rule so that it was inalienable,3. defendant mangilal denied the claim altogether, except that he admitted the genealogical table showing the relationship of mangilal and prabhushanker. he pleaded that the suit house fell to the share of prabhushanker and was in his possession. he denied that .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007(2)WLN380
ashok parihar, j.1. the land originally belonged to one devlal. after death of devlal, the mutation was made in the name of three sons namely, bhanwarlal, kesrilal and heeralal. all the three brothers alleged to had equal share in the entire land. subsequently, kesrilal died unmarried. bhanwarlal had already died prior to the death of kesrilal. after the death of kesrilal his share of the land was mutated in the name of heeralal in the year 1977.2. subsequently, a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner bishanlal son of bhanwarlal alleging that since heeralal had gone in adoption 50 years back, the petitioner should have been declared sole tenant of the share of the land belonged to kesrilal. accepting the plea of adoption, the trial court decreed the suit vide order and decree dt. 01.03.1986 declaring the petitioner as the sole tenant of the land belonging to kesrilal. the above order came to be challenged by legal heirs of heeralal before the revenue appellate authority. while allowing the appeal vide order dt. 24.09.1988, the revenue appellate authority set a side the order and decree dt. 01.03.1986 passed by the trial court. the order of the revenue appellate authority further came to be affirmed by the board of revenue vide order dt. 07.02.1995. hence the present writ petition.3. after hearing learned counsel for the parties, i have carefully gone through the material on record as also the orders passed by the courts below.4. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995CriLJ1345; I(1995)DMC350; 1994(2)WLN653
..... . in letters ex. p. 4 and ex. p. 5, appellant bhakhar ram insisted hip father-in-law that in future, he should directly communicate with him and not through the mediator ganesh ram. in these letters, there is no mention about any demand for dowry or about any harassment to deceased. in letters ex. p. 4 and ex. p. 5, appellant ..... was solemnized with appellant bhakhar ram in dec., 1986; that the son of his maternal uncle ganesh ram, who is also brother-in-law of appellant bhakhar ram, was the mediator in the said marriage. he clearly deposes that there was no demand for dowry on the part of the appellants in the marriage. however, in november, 1987, when he had ..... her tainted testimony. according to him, pw 2 ganesh ram, who is the cousin of pw 6 bhanwarlal and brother-in-law of appellant bhakhar ram and who was the mediator in arranging the marriage of the deceased, as also pw 8 bhoma ram resident of village hadda have not supported the prosecution case. pw 3 smt. nirmala has also not .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... also made endeavour to settle the dispute between both the siblings by way of sending this matter to mediation centre. in the mediation centre, the mediator has made all sincere efforts but nothing turned out and that effort of the court proved futile, therefore, the mediator has returned back the file to this court for its adjudication on merit. examining the lis involved in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... by both the parties and their respective counsels, wherein a prayer has been made that the appeal filed by the appellant may be dismissed. the report sent by the learned mediator alongwith the application under order xxiii, rule 1 cpc is taken on record. in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties and parties having acted upon the said ..... . during pendency of this appeal by order dated 07.11.2013, the matter was referred to the mediation center attached to this court and parties were directed to remain present before the learned mediator. a report dated 28.01.2014 has been received from the learned mediator, inter alia, indicating that the parties have compromised the suit on consideration of rs.5,80 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan - Jodhpur
faiyaz khan vs. state of rajasthan & ors. (s.b.civil writ petition no.246/99) 1 faiyaz khan vs. state of rajasthan & ors. (s.b.civil writ petition no.246/99) dated:- 24.11.15. hon'ble mr.justice sangeet lodha mr.h.r.soni alongwith ms.tripati soni, for the petitioner. mr.o.p.boob, government counsel.1. this writ petition is directed against order dated 10.9.98 of the board of revenue rajasthan, whereby while accepting the reference made by the additional collector, pali under section 82 of rajasthan land revenue act, 1956 ( for short the act of 1956 .) vide order dated 26.3.98, the transfer of the land measuring 4 bighas and 18 biswas comprising khasra no.166 situated at village-jaitaran, district-pali, made in favour of the petitioner, which was recorded in the revenue record as khudkast land of doli banam aasan gudadpeer, has been held to be illegal and accordingly, the mutation effected in the revenue record is directed to be cancelled.2. the relevant facts are that the land measuring 4 bighas and 18 biswas comprising khasra no.166 was recorded in the revenue record in the name of doli banam aasan gudadpeer and the name of balunath chela shivnath was recorded as pujari of the idol. after resumption of jagir, under the provisions of faiyaz khan vs. state of rajasthan & ors. (s.b.civil writ petition no.246/99) 2 rajasthan land reforms and resumption of jagir act, 1952 ( for short the jagir act, 1952 .), the land in question was sold by azeem bux in favour of the petitioner .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1986(2)WLN391
kishan mal lodha, j.1. these 11 appeals before us arise out of a common order dated september 22, 1980, passed by the learned single judge dismissing 37 identical writ petitions.2. as common questions are involved in these appeals, they were heard together and we consider it convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.3. it will be convenient to notice the facts in d.b. civil special appeal no. 204 of 1981 bal singh v. state of rajasthan and ors. which has arisen out of s.b. civil writ petition no. 278 of 1976 bal singh v. state.4. the petitioner-appellant was employee of the former ruler of erestwhile state of jodhpur. by a document anx. 1 dated 5-1-1964 the comptroller of house-hold of the former ruler of jodhpur state shri gaj singh allowed him to cultivate 50 bighas of land in khasra no. 4292 situale in moja, bilara which belonged to the ex-ruler of jodhpur, we may reproduce anx. 1 and it is as under:his highness house hold, jodhpurumaid bhawan palace, jodhpur,dated 5th january, 1964shri bal singh s/o bhom singh rajput at present doedhidhar in h.h. house-hold department has been admitted as tenant of the agricultural land of h.h. the maharaja sahib bahadur shri gaj singhji in moja bilara, tehsil bilara, district jodhpur and allowed to cultivate 50 bighas land in khasra no. 4292.sd/- manoharsinghcomptroller of house hold jodhpur.5. by this document annx. 1 the petitioner was allowed to cultivate 50 bighas agricultural land as according to him he was admitted as .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1991(2)WLN35
inder sen israni, j.1. in all these 20 writ petitions, a common question regarding lands allotted to various petitioners, who are either ex-servicemen or their heirs, has been raised and a prayer has been made that each of the petitioners should not be dispossessed from the lands in their possession. therefore, all the above-mentioned petitions are decided by one order.2. for the sake of giving facts, which are generally common in all the petitions, reference of writ petition no. 240/83, filed by the petitioner hansraj, has been made. all the petitioners served in indian army and each of the petitioners has been given regiment no., & rank held by them. the petitioners were enrolled in december 1941-42 and served on active war front and were discharged in the year, 1944, after cessation of hostilities. during the war, many of the petitioners served abroad also. prior to april 7, 1949, there existed sovereign state of jaipur (briefly, the then jaipur state) and then his highness maharaja sawai man singh was the ruler of the said state, who wielded all sovereign powers vested in him. he appointed a representative committee to make recommendations for the purpose of rehabilitation of the ex-army personnel vide his order no. 1010/sc dated july 29, 1943. on the recommendations of the said committee, the then government of jaipur state took certain decisions vide order no. 584/sc dated may 20, 1944, which were published in jaipur gazette volume lxii no. 5393 dated june 1, 1944. in .....Tag this Judgment!