Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1980 Page 1 of about 25 results (0.011 seconds)

Feb 02 1980 (HC)

Madhupuri Vs. the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and Three ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-02-1980

Reported in : 1980WLN(UC)21

kanta bhatnagar, j.1. madhpuri a successful plaintiff in a revenue suit filed this writ application, with the prayer that a writ of certiorari be issued against the judgment of baard of revenue dated 28-2-74 and 16-3-73 may also be quashed by which the decree of the two lower courts was reversed.2. the revenue suit under section 188 of the rajasthan tenancy act was passed on the ground that petitioner is a khetedar and the defendants are dying to interfere with his possession and, therefore, they must be restrained from interfering with his possession on the suit agricultural land. the basis of the right of khatedari was allowed before sale by respondents to kaloopuri, father of the plaintiff and delivery of possession of this agricultural land on jeth sud 11 smt. 2007 for rs. 500 co. consequently. mutation proceedings and the entry in the mutetion in favour of the plaintiff's father dated 22-12-56 was relied upon. there was further mutation in favour of the plaintiff himself after the death of father on 12th june, 1961.3. the suit was decreed by the sub-divisional officer, ghittorgarh and revenue appellate authority but was dismissed by the board of revenue as entioned above.4. the principal reason given by the board of revenue is that the suit wss bssed on khatedari rights and the plaintiff claims title through a sale deed, which was unregistered and never came on the record and that being so, it could not pass any valid title in favour of the plaintiff or his father.5. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 1980 (HC)

Hans Raj Bahl Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-25-1980

Reported in : 1980WLN119

c.m. lodha, c.j.1. this appeal under section 54 of the rajasthan land acquisition act, 1953, thereinafter referred to as 'the act') has been filed by the claimant, hans raj against the award and decree dated october 31, 1969, in land acquisition reference no. 3 of 1968 by the civil judge, jaipur city.2. proceedings for acquisition of land in village bhojpura and chak sudershanpura for planned development of jaipur city were initiated at the instance of secretary, urban improvement board, jaipur, and the government of rajasthan issued notification dated may 13, 1960, under section 4 of the act, published in the rajasthan rajpatra dated june 9, 1960, after taking further steps as prescribed under the act, notification under section 6 dated may 3, 1961, was also published in the rajasthan rajpatra dated may 11, 1961. the total area of the land notified under sections 4 and 6 was 552 bighas and 8 biswas. notice under section 9(3) of the act was duly served on the claimant hans raj on july 17, 196l. the claimant submitted the details of his claim on april 10, 1962, though the possession of the land has been taken over by the state or, august 10, 1961, he claimed compensation at the rate of rs. 15/- per sq. yd in respect of 15 bighas 19 biswas of land belonging to him. in all he made a claim for rs. 11,22,675/-. the land acquisition officer, how ever by his order dated april 5, 1963, gave his award as follows:1. value of the land measuring 15 bighas 19 biswas at rs. 350/- per bigha .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1980 (HC)

Bhootaram Vs. State and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-02-1980

Reported in : 1980WLN(UC)82a

s.k. mal lodha, j.1. the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of patwari with effect from september 1, 1951. an order of compulsory retirement was passed vide order no. lr/estt/5229 dated july 31,1978 by the collector, jalore under rule 244(2) of the rajasthan service rules, 1958 aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the rajasthan civil services appellate tribunal (which will hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, be referred to as 'the tribunal'). the memorandum of appeal has been filed by the petitioner marked as ex. 1 the tribunal, by its order (ex 3) dated june 13,1979, dismissed the appeal. the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying that the impugned order (ex. 3) dated june 13, 1979 passed by the tribunal, may be quashed, and that the petitioner may be reinstated on the post of patwari with all consequential benefits as if the order of compulsory retirement had never been passed against the petitioner.2. i have heard mr. m.r. calla, learned counsel for the petitioner at some length.3. the first contension of mr. calla is that the order of compulsory retirement is vitiated in as much as the appointing authority (collector) had failed to exercise independent discretion in the matter because of circular dated april 19/24th april, 1972, which is as under:attention is invited to appointments (a(sic) ii cr) department no. f. 24(55) appts (4)57 pt. 1 cr. ii/gr dated the 13th january 1955, where in procedure was laid down for compulsory .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 1980 (HC)

Uma Shanker and anr. Vs. the State and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-06-1980

Reported in : 1980WLN(UC)372

k.d. sharma, acting c.j.1. this is a special appeal filed by uma shankar and bijai shanker sons of shri prayag chand purohit under clause 18 of the rajasthan high court ordinance against the order of a learned single judge of this court in s.b. civil writ petition no 1631 of 1970, by which the appellants were not held khatedar tenants of the land in dispute and a writ of prohibition was not issued restraining the respondents from dispossessing the appellants from the disputed land.2. the relevant facts giving rise to this special appeal may be briefly stated as follows: kunwar jagjeet singh son of rao devi singh of village pugal was recorded as khatedar tenant of 409 bighas and 9 biswas of land comprised in khasra no 292 of village bariyoneala in tehsil bikaner in the revenue records from october 15, 19(sic)5 and thereafter, kunwar jagjeet singh sold a (sic) to the appellants vide registered sale deed dated september 13, 1958.his khatedari rights in 75 bighas of land out of the said land. after the sale the appellants got their names substituted as khatedar tenants in place of the name of kunwar jagjeet singh in the revenue record vide mutation order dated august 11, 1959. the appellants were shown as khatedar tenants in jamabandi of smt. year 2015 to smt. year 2017. later on, the rajasthan tenancy act was amended and section 15a was introduced therein in the year 1958, which barred accrual of khatedari rights in rajasthan canal area and divested khatedari tenants of their .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 26 1980 (HC)

The State of Rajasthan Vs. Murari and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-26-1980

Reported in : 1980WLN(UC)193

kanta bhatnagar, j.1. the respondents were tried for the offences under section 302, 307, 147, 440 and 447 indian penal code by the session judge, alwar by his judgment dated 19-7-72 the learned session judge acquitted all the respondents for the charges framed against them.2. being dissatisfied by that judgment of acquittal the state of rajasthan has preferred this appeal.3. briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that at village-`moja deothana' there was a land with nos. 77-78 known as 'jhalra ki-talai'. that land was sold by angad singh and jitendra singh uncle of bhanwarsingh for rs. 1350/- to the respondents murari, shanker, puniya, prabhati, sitaram and kanahiya. the said sale deed ex. p. 1 was executed on 15-6-70 and got registered. it is alleged that though there was a recital in the sale deed for handing over the possession of the land to the purchaser. bhanwar singh s/o narain singh cultivated grain crop on those fields. bhanwar singh wanted sale to be set aside and therefore he bad a talked with murari respondent and with the intervention of shiv dan returned the amount of rs. 1350/- to murari and took the registry from him.4. on 25-10-71 at about 9.00 a.m. murari respondent with his other companions tried to uproot the grain crop of bhanwarsingh. bhanwarsingh on being informed by jitendra singh, went to the field arjun singh also accompanied him after sometime jagansingh, jitendra singh, rajendra singh and angad singh also reached. all .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1980 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gopi Chand B. Tholia

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-11-1980

Reported in : (1980)17CTR(Raj)128; [1980]125ITR611(Raj); 1980(13)WLN550

sidhu. j, 1. this is a reference under section 256(1), income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the new act'), by the appellate tribunal, delhi bench a, raising for decision by this court two questions of law which have been formulated by the tribunal as follows : ' 1. whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to an order under section 25a of the indian income-tax act, 1922, recognising its claim for partition with effect from january 3, 1958 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal erred in law in accepting the claim of partition of the family with effect from january 3, 1958, and in consequence thereof in cancelling the assessment made under section 143(3) of the income-tax act, 1961, for the assessment year 1960-61 ' 2. the facts as stated by the tribunal in its statement of the case and otherwise appearing on the record may be recapitulated here. m/s. gopi chand b. tholia, jaipur, was assessed as huf until and for the assessment year 1959-60 relating to the previous year ending on diwali 1958. at the time of making the said assessment, the assessee claimed that partition had already taken place with effect from january 3, 1958. the assessee made an application under s, 25a of the indian i.t. act, 1922 (hereinafter called ' the old act '), for an order recording the alleged partition. the ito rejected this application and assessed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 1980 (HC)

Delux Roadways Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-25-1980

Reported in : 1980WLN635

dwarka prasad, j.1. these two writ petitions raise common questions of law and fact and are, therefore, disposed of by a common order.2. the petitioners are bus operators and they were plying their vehicles on two non-temporary stage carriage permits on the hanumangarh sirsa via sangaria inter-statal route (hereinafter called 'the route'). there was a limit of two permits fixed on the route and both the petitioners were providing stage carriage service on the route. within the statutory period, before the date of expiry of their nontemporary stage carriage permits, both the petitioners applied for renewal of their permit the substance of the renewal applications of both the petitioners was published by the notification dated april 23, 1979 in the rajasthan gazette dated may 10, 1979 inviting objections in respect of the renewal of the permits of the petitioners within a period of 30 days from the date of the publication of such notification. by another notification dated may 24, 1979 which was published in the rajasthan gazette dated may 31, 1979, the regional transport authority, bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the r.t.a') notified that the successive meetings of the r.t.a shall take place on july 3, 1979, september, 4 1979 and november 6, 1979. according to the petitioners, no objections were filed by any person in respect of their renewal applications within the statutory period of 30 days. however, the rajasthan state road transport corporation, jaipur (hereinafter .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 12 1980 (HC)

Chandra and Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-12-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Raj217

orders.c. agrawal, j.1. the cinema house known as 'shri ganga theatre' (hereinafter referred to as 'the cinema theatre'), situated in the city of bikaner, belongs to the state of rajasthan. the cinema theatre was given on lease for a period of five years to m/s. balabux anand raj, a partnership firm, from 1st august, 1958. during the pendency of the said lease, the firm m/s. balabux anandraj was dissolved on 12th june, 1961 and thereafter, the lease was continued in the name of shri anandraj on the same terms. the case of the petitioner is that in the year 1962, shri anandraj sub-leased the cinema theatre to the petitioner and since then the petitioner has been in possession of the cinema theatre. the lease of shri anandraj was extended by a period of one year from august 1, 1963 on the same terms and conditions. the extension was given in the name of m/s. anandraj and company, whose sole-proprietor was shri anandraj. after the expiry of the period of the lease, proceedings were initiated by the collector, bikaner, under tile provisions of the rajasthan public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), against m/s. anandraj & co., and in the said proceedings the estate officer passed an order dated 27th august, 1968 for eviction of m/s. anandraj and co., from the cinema theatre. the aforesaid order passed by the estate officer was affirmed, in appeal by the district judge, bikaner. two writ petitions (s. b. civil writ .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 1980 (HC)

ishwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-26-1980

Reported in : 1980WLN(UC)268

k.d. sharma, j.1. the learned additional sessions judge no. 1, jodhpur, has convicted both the above named accused appellants under section 366, ipc and each of the accused has been sentenced to undergo four year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further one months simple imprisonment. accused babulal has preferred a jail appeal whereas ishwarsingh has preferred a re> presented appeal. as both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. briefly stated, the prosecution story is that mst. galuri, a girl aged about 14 years, resident of ramdeora, on january 16, 1979, had gone to pokaran to make some purchases. when she was at the meat shop of shafi mohammed pw 11, it is alleged that both the accused persons came to her and took away the said galuri pw 5 on cycle on the pretext that she was being taken away to village ramdeora to the house of her father. the accused persons are alleged to have taken her from place to place and they also subjected her to sexual intercourse. it was only on january 24, 1979, when galuri was staying with the accused appellants in room no. 17 in panchayati dharamshala, sriganganagar that the police suspected the commission of some offence and galuri was recovered from the possession of both the accused persons. after investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the accused appellants were tried for offence under section 366 and 376, ipc. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 1980 (HC)

Purshottam Lal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-24-1980

Reported in : 1980()WLN184; 1980()WLN321

ordermahendra bhushan, j.1. this is a writ petition, which was initially moved by one ram pershad rajgaria, who died during the pendency of the writ petition, and is now being represented by the legal representatives. it seeks quashing of the order dated october 4, 1971, of the government of india, ministry of steel and mines, department of mines, passed under rule 54 of the mineral concession rules, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the rules).2. the question involved in this writ petition is, as to whether the state government has a right to reserve the mineral for exploitation by itself or for any other purpose. to decide this controversy, the facts need be stated so far as they are relevant for the present purposes. they are as follows.3. laxmi narain pandey (respondent 3) made an application on 2-1-1967, for the grant of prospecting licence in respect of 640 acres or one square mile out of the area situated near villages karowali, piplawa, naraina and bhakharia, situated in tehsil nathdwara and district udaipur. the area applied for by the respondent (3) is shown, in schedule 'a' by letters efgh, and the application was for the mineral fluoritc. but, the state government vide its order dated udaipur, january 17, 1967, notified for general information of the public that an area of 57.715 sq, k. m. which included the area applied for by respondent (3) is reserved for departmental prospecting for barytes and other economic and associated minerals. it was further made clear .....

Tag this Judgment!


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