Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-18-1981
Reported in : AIR1982Raj136; 1981()WLN433
kasliwal, j. a ceiling proceeding under chap. iii-b of the raja-sthan tenancy act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the act) was initiated against shri bajrang lal, father of the petitioner. shri bajrang lal submitted a declaration showing himself, his wife, son and mother as members of his family. bajrang lal also took the plea that he had sold 18 biswas of land to kishore and ram narain and as such the aforesaid land should be excluded bajrang lal further took the plea that he had handed over possession of certain portions of agricultural land to his mother and the son. learned s. d. o. baran, in his judgment, annexure-4dated 31-10-75 held that according to the declaration made by bajrang lal, there were four members in his family. as regards the sale made in favour of kishore and ram narain, neither any document nor any other evidence was produced. he further held that no document was produced to show that possession was handed over to the mother and the son. he further found that the son kanta prasad was minor and the mother came within the definition of family. in view of the aforesaid findings, the learned s. d. o. held that bajrang lal was entitled to keep 30 standard acres of land and declared 28 standard acres of land in excess. aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of the s. d. o., bajrang lal filed an appeal before the revenue appellate authority. the learned revenue appellate authority upheld the order of the s.d.o. and dismissed the appeal. thereafter, two .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-23-1981
Reported in : AIR1981Raj258; 1981()WLN163
orderkalyan dutta, c.j. 1. this is a writ petition filed by ram murti under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order for quashing the judgment marked ex. 16 dated october 30, 1980, which was passed by non-petitioner no. 2 and whereby the election petition filed by non-petitioner no. 1 was accepted,2. the writ petition arises under the following facts and circumstances:--election to the office of sarpanch of gram panchayat 83 lnp, tehsil padampur, district sri ganganagar, was held on february 5, 1978. the petitioner and kashi ram, non-petitioner no. 1, contested the election for the office of sarpanch. the petitioner received 868 valid votes and kashi ram, non-petitioner no. 1, secured 809 valid votes. as many as 43 votes were declared invalid. consequently, the petitioner was declared elected to the office of sarpanch by a clear majority of 59 votes. kashi ram, non-petitioner no. 1, thereupon, presented an election petition against the petitioner under rule 78 of the rajasthan panchayat and nyaya panchayat election rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the rules, in the court of the munsiff, karanpur, but the petition was, later on, transferred to the court of munsiff, padampur, non-petitioner no. 2. it was alleged in the election petition by non-petitioner no. 1 that the returning officer committed serious irregularities in conducting the election by non-observance with the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-28-1981
Reported in : AIR1982Raj1; 1981()WLN198
orderm.l. shrimal, j.1. petitioner, surya narain choudhary, by this writ petition has challenged the validity of the order of the president of india (annexure-1, dt. aug. 8, 1981), terminating the period of the office of governor, held by shri raghukul tilak and has claimed the following reliefs :--(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing respondents nos. 1, 2 and 3 to treat respondent no. 4 shri raghukul tilak as governor of rajasthan up to may 11, 1982;(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto. quashing the appointment of shri k.d. sharma, chief justice of rajasthan high court, under article 160 of the constitution of india, directing him to discharge the functions of the governor of rajasthan; and(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction that article 156(1) of the constn, is not subservient to article 74 of the constn. and in the alternative to declare article 156(1) of the constn. to be ultra vires of article 74 of the constn. and invalid, unconstitutional and violative of the basic features of the constitution.2. the case of the petitioner is that he was a member of the rajasthan legislative assembly from june, 1977 to feb. 17, 1980. he is an active member of the janata party and a well known political and social worker, who is keenly interested in the social, political and economic welfare of the state and the people of rajasthan. he is dedicated to the principles, enshrined in the constn. and it is his .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-03-1981
Reported in : 1981WLN87
s.c. agrawal j.1. both these appeals raise common questions and are, therefore disposed of by a common judgment. special appeal no. 459/72 arises out of civil suit no. 956/1958(105/59), whereas special appeal no. 581/72 arises out of civil suit no. 549/1958. kanmal, who is the respondent in both these appeal, was the defendant in both the suits.2. the facts relating to the filing of the aforesaid suits are as under: ramdhan (appellant in special appeal no. 459/72) was a tenant of the respondent. brijlal (appellant in special appeal no. 581/72) was tenant of sheodayal, the brother of the respondent. on january 16, 1953 the respondent filed a complaint in respect of an offence under section 323 i.p.c., against appellants, ramdhan & brijlal, in the court of honorary magistrate first class ajmer. in the aforesaid complaint, the respondent alleged that the appellants had given him a beating after the cycle on which two appellants were riding, had dashed with the cycle of the respondent. the honorary magistrate, first class, ajmer, by his order dated 19th june, 1956, dismissed the said complaint and acquitted both the appellants. not satisfied with the order passed by the magistrate, the respondent went up in revision and the said revision petition of the respondent was dismissed by the additional sessions judge, ajmer, by his order dated 22nd september, 1956, on the view that the said revision was not maintainable and that the respondent ought to have approched the high court in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-02-1981
Reported in : 1981()WLN26
order1. this is a petition under article 226 of the constitution of india by one om prakash against the slate of rajasthan and shri ram prasad, sarpanch, gram panchayat, jogiwala, district sri ganganagar, for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction for quashing the order dated september 21, 1979, by which the suspension order passed against ram prasad, sarpanch, non-petitioner no. 2, was revoked, while keeping intact the inquiry pending against him, and for issuing a writ, order or direction declaring section 17(4) (a) of the rajasthan panchayat act, hereinafter referred to as the act, ultra vires to the extent of passing orders for reinstatement or revoking suspension order.2. the relevant facts giving rise to this petition are narrated, in brief, as follows:--ram prasad, non-petitioner no. 2, is the sarpanch of gram panchayat, jogiwala, district sri ganganagar. criminal cases and enquiries under the rajasthan panchayat act were instituted and made against him in several matters. investigation is going on in a case of embezzlement against him and he is said to have been guilty of so many types of omissions and commissions of acts in the capacity of a sarpanch of the gram panchayat, jogiwala. the state of rajasthan vide its order dated april 27, 1979, suspended ram prasad, non-petitioner under section 17 (4) (a) of the act on the ground that a disciplinary inquiry has been started against him under sub-section (4) on the charges of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-24-1981
Reported in : 1981WLN223
p.d. kudal, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned sessions judge, bundi dated 31-4-1980, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted under section 302, ipc and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of rs. 250/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. the learned counsel for the accused-appellant has argued only one point. his contention is that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the offence falls within the purview of section 304, ipc and not under section 302, ipc. his contention is that the incident took place at the spur of moment and, that there was no pre-meditation for committing this offence. it has been further contended on behalf of the accused-appellant that he is an old man of 72 years of age and that a lenient view may be taken. it was also contended on behalf of the accused-appellant that the injured did not get medical aid properly and that if the blood could be supplied to him at the proper time he might have been saved. it was also contended that the deceased died after 15 days of the incident. attention of the court was invited to the statement of dr s.n. bagaru pw/9 who has stated that infection had started in the wound in the skull. he has further stated that no medicine was applied in the first two days after the incident. he also stated that if the injury was not attended for a day or two it could have been fatal. he has also contended that some patients .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-01-1981
Reported in : 1981WLN(UC)41
g.m. lodha, j.1. dr. r.n. singh professor of paediatrics (umed hospital) in s.n medical college jodhpur has filed this special appeal under section 18 of the rajasthan high court ordinance 1949 against the judgment of hon'ble single judge of this court dated 23rd april, 1981 in s.b. civil writ petition no. 366 of 1980 whereby the judgment of rajasthan civil appellate tribunal was set aside and the following writ was issued:as the tribunal committed an error apparent on the face of the record in holding in its impugned judgment marked annexure 9 that by appointing the petitioner as superintendent, the state government has enhanced her status and thereby adversely affected the right of the con-petitioner no. 3's seniority and varied his service conditions to his detriment in violation of the provisions of article 14 and article 16, the writ petition filed by dr. chandra kiran is accepted and the impugned decision of the tribunal marked annexure 9 is set aside and the non-petitioner no. 3 is restrained from working as superintendent, umaid hospital. jodhpur. in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. 2. the of erative portion of the judgment of the service tribunal which was quashed by hon'ble single judge reads as under:we however, feel that in professional posts like these, at the highest level of service much of the controversy could have been saved if a discreet action was taken by administrative action, either by arranging posting or by .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-31-1981
Reported in : 1981WLN701
guman mal lodha, j.1. a 'crackdown' & 'mass sacking' of university lecturers (temporary) on change of ruling party by issuing the governors ordinance, whether offends the equal protection clause, is the billion dollar question, raised under the banner of discrimination between 'pre-emergency' and 'post-emergency' appointees by section 3 of the ordinance. the 25th june, 1975' having been made the 'laxaman rekha','deadline' or 'd day, for regularisation of services, the ousted post-emergency lecturers have invoked article 14 & 16 of the constitution of india to quash the '25th june, 1975', arbitrary dead line', a 'brainchild' of the then vice chancellors and readily welcomed by the then government, the ruling party of which is alleged to be anti-emergency.2. the ruling political parties existence being temporary and changing, in federal democratic constitution, but the bureaucracy and services, being permanent, unalloyed, and unadulterated bedrock of the state; should the high court as watch dog & custodian' of the constitution, strike down the laws intended to carry out 'mass sacking operations' and 'crackdown' on 'employees employed by earlier, ruling party', is yet another 'apex' controversy? the pivot of answers in this decision would be ambit, scope and dimensions of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of india, detached from the political overtones.3. granting that neither 'lion' and 'ox' are equal, nor 'horse' and 'ass' can be classified in one and the same class for .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-29-1981
Reported in : AIR1982Raj205; 1981()WLN650
ordern.m. kasliwal, j.1. according to the allegations made in the writ petition, the petitioner m/s. praia sahkari udyog bharatpur ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the society) is a multi-unit co-operative society which is governed under the multi-unit cooperative societies act, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as the central act). it was originally registered under the rajasthan co-operative societies act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the rajasthan act) on 3-11-1971 vide registration no. 2079 and later on sought an amendment vide resolutions passed in the general body meeting held on 29-11-1971, notice of which was served upon the registrar of co-operative societies, rajasthan vide registry receipt receipt no. 678, dated 7-12-1971 for seeking amendment for the adoption of uttar pradesh co-operative societies act, 1965 and rules made thereunder on the ground that the proposed principal place of business of the petitioner stands shifted from bharatpur to launi (u. p.). an order dated 3-5-1972was issued for making an inquiry andthereafter liquidation order was issuedon 6-6-1972. the petitioner filed a writpetition, which was decided in favour ofthe petitioner and whereby both theaforesaid orders were quashed andcharge of the society was taken over bythe then chairman of the society fromthe so-called liquidator. according to thepetitioner the so-called liquidator shrik.s. mathur, inspector, co-operativedepartment falsified the accounts andrealised certain amount unlawfully .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-15-1981
Reported in : AIR1981Raj298; 1981()WLN32
shrimal, j.1. shri bajranglal was elected as sarpanch of gram panchayat, begas, which falls within the jurisdiction of police station jhotwara, district jaipur. on a complaint filed against the sarpanch by ram prakash and others regarding misconduct and neglect of duties committed by him, an enquiry was initiated. a report along with a forwarding letter, dated march 14, 1980, was sent to the government. after considering the report, a statement of charges (annexure 3) was served on the petitioner. a notice dated may 19, 1980 (annexure 2), calling upon the sarpanch to show cause in writing why the charges should not be inquired into, was issued and may 28, 1980, was fixed for the purpose. after having received the reply (annexure 4) and considering the same on merits, the government decided to have the enquiry into the charges, mentioned in annexure 3, conducted. the sub-divisional officer, jaipur, was appointed as enquiry officer; vide order, dated june 9, 1980 (annexure 5). the sarpanch was placed under suspension under section 17 (4a) of the rajas than panchyat act, 1953 (to be hereinafter referred to as 'the act') and was debarred from taking part in any act or proceedings of the panchayat so long as he remainded under suspension, the suspension order was also published in navjyoti daily, dated july 31, 1980.2. the petitioner, feeling aggrieved against the order of suspension filed the present writ petition before a single bench of this court, claiming the following .....Tag this Judgment!