Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1986 Page 1 of about 55 results (0.010 seconds)

Feb 25 1986 (HC)

Paras Chand JaIn Vs. University of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-25-1986

Reported in : 1986(1)WLN631

mahendra bhushan sharma, j.1. some facts are not in dispute any longer and they are these. the petitioner paras chand jain passed his intermediate examination in the year 1979 from madhya pradesh (board of secondary education madhya pradesh bhopal) vide annexure 1. he was admitted in iind year course of tdc commerce and appeared in iind year examination 1980 in the university of rajasthan. a candidate who had passed his intermediate examination was eligible for admission to iind year tdc course. as per the rajasthan university rules then in force, the petitioner was also to pass a paper of general english in iind year tdc. he could not get the requisite passing marks in that paper as well as abst i & ii and therefore he was declared eligible for supplementary examination in those papers in 1981. he appeared in final year of tdc examination along with back-log papers of iind year namely, general english and abst i & ii. he cleared the papers of final year commerce examinations but was again declared eligible for supplementary examination in abst i & ii and general english. he applied for revaluation of the marks obtained by him in the final year examination of 1981, but he was declared fail in the final year commerce. he again appeared in the final year commerce tdc special examination, 1982 at government college centre, kota. he also appeared in the back log papers as aforesaid. he was declared passed in abst papers i and ii but failed in general english paper but no marks .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 24 1986 (HC)

Ram Gopal Vs. Smt. Ramnathi Bai

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-24-1986

Reported in : 1987(1)WLN552

narendra mohan kasliwal, j.1. the case of the petitioners is that in village sinota, tehsil pipalda, district kota, one shri chhittar lal s/o bhura lal gujar was the muafidar of 190 bighas 19 biswas of land comprising khasra nos. 211, 298 and 328. a certified copy of the jamabandi for the samvat year 2011 to 2014 has been annexed and marked as annexure-1, according to the petitioners their father jagannath s/o sarwan was cultivating 43 bighas 6 biswas of land comprised in khasra no. 328 as a sub-tenant since samvat 2009-2010. at the time of the coming into force of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 (here in after referred to as 'the 1955 act)' on october 15, 1955, the petitioner father shri jagannath was entered as zaili (sub-tenant in the annual registers and as such he acquired khatedari rights under section 19(1)(a) of the act.2. it has been further alleged that muafi lands of shri chhittar lal were resumed under provisions of the rajasthan land reforms and resumption jagirs act, 1952 with effect from july 1, 1958 and the right, title and interest of chhitar lal and every other person claiming through him in his muafi lands stood resumed to the government free from all encumbrances.3. it has been further alleged that shri jagannath expired in the year 1968 and he was survived by the petitioners, who are his sons and the land in question was cultivated by shri jagannath during his life time and after the death of jagannath it is cultivated by the petitioners, shri chhitar mal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 1986 (HC)

Bal Singh and 10 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-07-1986

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!

Jan 14 1986 (HC)

Bhanu and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-14-1986

Reported in : 1986(1)WLN563

jas raj chopra, j.1. these two appeals; one by the state and the other by the accused-persons arise out of the same judgment rendered by the learned sessions judge, sriganganagar on may 24,1975, where by, the learned lower court has acquitted accused sultan and dhonkal of all the offences with which they were charge by giving them the benefit of doubt. it has, however, held accused bhanu guilty of the offence under section 304 part ii, ipc and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. he was also convicted under section 447 ipc and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one month. accused surjaram and hajari were convicted under sections 447 and 323 ipc and mst. shanti and mst. saraswati were convicted under section 447 ipc. however, looking to the circumstances of the case in which the offences were committed and having regard to the character of the accused and in the absence of any previous conviction recorded against them, the learned lower court has granted them the benefit of the probation of offenders act. it has, however, acquitted all the accused-persons of the offences under sections 302 and 302/149 ipc. aggrieved against this judgment the stale has preferred appeal against all the 7 accused-persons including mst. shanti and mst. saraswati with the prayer that all the accused, persons should have been convicted of the offence under sections 302 or 302/149 ipc. it may be staged here that the state's appeal was not admitted against mst. shanti and mst. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 1986 (HC)

Amb Singh and anr. Vs. Sub-divisional Officer and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-08-1986

Reported in : 1986(1)WLN418

milap chand jain, j.1. this writ petition is directed against the order of the board of revenue dated october 27, 1978 (anx. 4) whereby the board of revenue allowed the revision and set aside the order of the revenue appellate authority dated october 20, 1975 (anx. 2) and restored the order of the learned sdo dated may 31, 1975 (anx. 1). the sub-divisional officer, dhinmal decided the petitioners ceiling ease by his order anx. 1. he recorded that the portion is recognisable and acceptable but as the petitioners being the co-tenants are entitled to equal shares. on that basis the sub-divisional officer determined the ceiling area of the petitioners. each of the petitioners was entitled to 37.12 standard acres considering the number of members of the family of jaisingh as 3, he found that no part of share of his land is resumable whereas the number of the family members of the petitioner amb singh was less than five so he found that 7.12 standard acres land is resumable. consequently he ordered that 51 bighas 1 biswa land as specified in his order shall vest in the state government in accordance with the option. the revenue appellate authority on separate appeals preferred by the petitioners in view of the partition effected between the petitioners found that no land of petitioner jaisingh is liable to be resumed as the land in his possession, is not in excess of the ceiling area whereas 23 bighas 1 biswas land of petitioner ambsingh is liable to resumed of the kharas. nos. 108 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 1986 (HC)

Omkar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-13-1986

Reported in : 1987(2)WLN658

inder sen israni, j.1. this is a criminal revision petition filed by omkar and others under section 397/401 cr. pc against the judgment dated 20-3-1986 passed by the learned additional sessions judge, dausa, camp at jaipur in cr. revision petition no. 13/85, whereby he accepted the revision petition of the non-petitioner and reversed the judgment and order dated 11th november, 1982 passed by the munsif and judicial magistrate, sambher in cr. case no. 81/82 (345/79), by which the learned munsif had discharged the petitioners for offence alleged to have been committed under sections 419, 420, 468 and 120b, ipc.2. brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that complainant mangu alias ramjiwan s/o dalu ram ahir, resident of haripura filed a criminal complaint in the court of munsif magistrate, sambher-lake against 7 persons, including the petitioners, alleging that there is a land bearing khasra no. 323 measuring 2 bighas and 15 biswas and khasra no. 325 measuring bighas and 11 biswas, situate at village bagpura, which belonged to the complainant and the pass-book of the said land is also with him. it was alleged that all the accused petitioners conspired together on 23-9-1978 that the complainant had expired and that mogha, kalu gangaram, and ramlal are his legal representatives, therefore, the mutation entries he made in their names. it was also alleged that srinath das, patwari chandlal sarpanch and omkar also supported this false story. the complainant, therefore, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 1986 (HC)

Smt. Prem Kanwar and ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Roadways Corporation and ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-24-1986

Reported in : AIR1987Raj146; 1986(1)WLN730

s.n. bhargava, j.1. this is an appeal under section 110-d of the motor vehicles act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act of 1939'), against the award dt. 27th sept., 1984 passed by the motor accident claims tribunal, ajmer dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellants.2. on 25-4-1979 at about 9.15am, deceased sanwat singh was going on a cycle from the side of nasirabad town towards the bus stand, nesirabad. he was on the left side of the road. when the deceased was near the speed breaker near the bus stand towards nasirabad town, bus no. r.r.m. 1460 of rajasthan state road transport corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'rsrtc') overtook another bus of rsrtc which was passing the speed breaker. both the buses were coming out of the bus stand and going towards nasirabad town. madan singh, the driver of the bus no. r.r.m. 1460, could not control the bus on account of careless, rash and negligent driving and hit the deceased sanwat singh who died on the spot. the deceased's bicycle was completely damaged.3. the deceased sanwat singh was a driver in grade ii and was drawing a sum of rs. 375/- per month as on 25-4-1979.4. the claimant-appellants filed a claim petition under section 110 of the act of 1939 before the motor accident claims tribunal claiming a compensation of rs. 25,000/- on account of death and rs. 75,000/- on account of loss of income, totalling to rs. 1,00,000/-.5. the claim was contested by the respondents and they filed separate replies to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 1986 (HC)

Mahant Ram Swaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-17-1986

Reported in : 1986(1)WLN739

narendra mohan kasliwal, j.1. both the above writ petitions are disposed of by one single order as the facts in both the cases are connected with each-other and an order was also passed to connect both the above writ petitions for hearing purposes.2. i shall first deal with the facts of writ petition no. 24 of 1982. the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's ancestors were granted three jagirs separately from time to time:(1) in the town of sawai jaipur (kishanpole), 6 bighas in 'udak' vide patta annx. 1 of samvat 1893;(5) in the town of sawai jaipur (bhawani shankerpura), 25 bighas in 'udak' vide patta samvat 1930: and(3) in village aakodiya tehsil chaksoo in 'bhog' of temple of maha-deoji, 25 bighas.thus, the first two jagirs in the town of sawai jaipur were in 'udak' tenure and the third was in 'bhog' tenure.3. the case of the petitioner further is that the rajasthan land reforms and resumption of jagirs act, 1952 (here in after referred to as 'the act'), came into force with effect from 18th day of february, 1952 and the rajasthan land reforms & resumption of jagirs rules, 1954 (here in after referred to as 'the rules') came into force on 16-6-1954. vide notification, dated oct. 14, 1958, published in the rajasthan rajyapatra, dated 23-10-1958, the government of rajasthan appointed 1st day of november, 1958 as the date for resumption of jagirs land (not being jagir lands which were originally granted or were or are deemed to have been granted and the income of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 1986 (HC)

Kushal Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-01-1986

Reported in : AIR1987Raj41; 1987(1)WLN467

j.r. chopra, j. 1. this reference has been made by a learned single judge of this court in s.b. civil writ petition no. 125 of 1982. the question that has been referred for the decision of a larger bench reads as follows: 'that whether the illegal preparation of the electoral roll can be challenged by way of election petition under rule 78{d)(iv) of the election rules of 1960 or not?' 2. the facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this reference briefly stated are : that the petitioner kushal chand is the resient of ward no. 9 of village tausar, tehsil and district nagaur. he has contested the election for the post of sarpanch against non-petitioner 5, shri mangital, but he has lost it. the petitioner has alleged that while revising the electoral rolls of gram panchayat, tausar, the authorised officer under the rajasthan panchayat act, 1953, has included 326 names in the electoral rolls wrongly because 142 persons out of them were minors, 61 persons were non-residents and 123 persons have migrated to other places several years ago. it has further been alleged that 28 persons who were already registered as voters in certain words were transposed to different wards without any justification. objection petitions were filed before the authorised officer but he rejected them without holding any preliminary enquiry and without passing any speaking order in spite of the fact that objection petitions were supported by affidavits and have been filed by the electors of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 1986 (HC)

Artee Minerals and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-10-1986

Reported in : 1987CriLJ1086; 1987(1)WLN94

orderm.c. jain, j.1. the petitioners have been summoned by the chief judicial magistrate, banswara, on registration of the case against them, on complaint filed by the asstt. inspector, udaipur, agriculture quality control under insecticides act, 1968. petitioner 1 is the firm and petitioners 2 to 5 are its partners. the petitioner 6 is the chief executive and the petitioner 7 is the senior sales representative. in para 12 of the complaint, the only allegation made against petitioners 2 to 7 are that they are responsible persons.2. the learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the essential and requisite allegations whereby penal liability may be attracted, have not been made against the petitioners, so they cannot be held liable and no cognizance can be taken against them. the learned magistrate has erred in ordering issue of the process against them after taking cognizance. learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this court in p.r. neelkanth v. state of rajasthan (1986) 1 judicial surveyor 2 : 1986 cri lj 1811. the learned public prosecutor submitted that in the complaint, it has been alleged that the persons mentioned in para 12 of the complaint are the persons responsible for the conduct of business of the firm and, so, they should be deemed to be guilty of the offence.3. the question, that arises for consideration is, whether by the allegations made in para 12 of the complaint, requirements of law stand satisfied. on perusal of para 12 of .....

Tag this Judgment!


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