Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1988 Page 1 of about 52 results (0.012 seconds)

Aug 29 1988 (HC)

Prabhu Lal Vs. Board of Revenue

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-29-1988

Reported in : 2(1988)WLN(Rev)150

m.b. sharma, j.1. this writ petition is arising out of the mutation proceeding in repect of the agricultural land.2. one shiv nandan singh was admittedly a recorded khateder of the land bearing khasra no. 116. measuring 16 bighas 13 biswas situated in balwan, tehsil pipalda, district kota, rajasthan. he is said to have sold the aforesaid agricultural land to hazarilal, who is now represented by his legal representatives (respondents nos. 1 to 4) and to one ram kishan who had an equal share, for the consideration of rs. 500/- under an unregistered sale-deed., the aforesaid half share of ram kishan is also said to have been sold to the aforesaid hazarilal on 11th may, 1962, again under un-registered sale deed though for more than rs. 100/-. the board of revenue, under its judgment september 23, 1987, has said that one ram kishan purchased 8 bighas 7 biswas of land by a registered sale deed on october 6, 1969, from shiv nandan singh, who was a recorded khatedar and on basis of that sale-deed ram kishan got the mutation of 8 bighas, 7 biswas land attested in his favour on february 3, 1970, by the gram panchayat balwan.the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid sale in favour of ram kishan by shiv nandan singh was not of no. 116, but there appears to be no dispute that against the attestation of the mutation in favour of the above named ram kishan, an appeal was filed by the petitioners before the learned additional collector, who accepted the appeal and set .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 07 1988 (HC)

Raghunath Das and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-07-1988

Reported in : 2(1988)WLN(Rev)38

gopal kishan sharma, j.1. according to the writ petition, the grandfather of petitioners nos. 1 & 2 and the great-grandfather of petitioner no. 3 baldev owned agricultural lands in village--aton. baldev died in s.y. 1980, and after his death, his property devolved on his two sons kanhaiyalal and janki lal. kanhaiyalal expired some time in 1952, and after his death, his property devolved on his two sons, petitioner no. 1 raghunath das and one radha kishan, and the lands which had devolved on the death of baldev, came in the joint-khatedari of petitioner no. 1 and his brother radha kishan and their uncle, jankilal, in equal share. on 7th july, 1954, petitioner no. 1 and his brother, radha kishan; and petitioner no. 2 and his brother mohan lal and their father, janki lal applied for mutation alleging that they were in possession in the lands of their share separately, and they prayed that the lands so possessed by them, should be entered separately in their khata. the utation was attested by the tehsildar - atru, on 7th july, 1954, in accor-. bee with the compromise of the parties; and 165 bighas and 18 biswas of and was ordered.to be recorded in the name of janki lal. whereas 164 bighas the name of petitioner no. 1 raghunath das; 165 bighas and 14 biswas in the name of petitioner no. 1's brother radha kishan; 167 bighas and 15 swas in the name of petitioner no. 2 mangi lal: and 163 bighas and 7 biswas of land was ordered to be recorded in the 'name of petitioner n0. 2's brother .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 1988 (HC)

RamnaraIn and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-07-1988

Reported in : 1989CriLJ760; 1988(2)WLN123

ordernavin chandra, j.1. this order will decide three criminal miscellaneous petitions nos. 190 of 1987, 5 of 1987 and 145 of 1986 filed before this court under section 482, cr. p.c. by a common order as the same question of law comes for consideration in all these three petitions.2. facts leading to the filing of criminal miscellaneous petition no. 190 of 1987 are that on june 6, 1981 roop singh son of mukhtiar singh had filed a criminal complaint in the court of judicial magistrate no. 2, hanumangarh against kulwant singh, ram narain and harmit singh complaining of the commission of offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 166, 167 and 120b, i.p.c. it was alleged by roop singh in his complaint that he was khatedar tenant of agricultural land in 'chak' no. 27 ptp, sq. no. 24 and comprised in 'killa' nos. 1 to 19 and in sq. no. 24, killas nos. 14 and 15, measuring in all 20 bighas 10 biswas (nahari), and he was in its peaceful possession. it was mentioned that kulwantsingh and his deceased brother raghuveersingh held agricultural land in their khatedari in 'chak' no. 28 amp measuring 3 bighas and in 'chak' no. 25 ptp measuring 16 bighas, in all 19 bighas, over which kulwantsingh and his deceased brother raghuveersingh were in possession. it was alleged that kulwantsingh and his deceased brother used to insist upon the complainant to exchange his agricultural land with their land to which the former did not agree. due to this refusal, kulwantsingh and his deceased brother .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 28 1988 (HC)

Ram Pratap Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-28-1988

Reported in : 2(1989)WLN(Rev)27a

farooq hasan, j.1. the facts, simple enough as they are, have been complicated by the voluminous record built up by the petitioners. shorn of all unnecessary detail, the relevant facts are these. the petitioners, (ram pratap, kewal chand, padam kumar and mabaveer prasad), claimed themselves as khatedar tenants of the land situated in villages gamach (308 bighas 9 biswas) and bhawanipura (46 bighas 10 biswas) on the ground that they had succeeded over the land inherited by dhanna and laxmi narain on the death of one, shri onkar. according to the petitioners, on the death of dhanna lal, the parties partitioned co-parcenary joint family property and the mutation was attested before 1-4-1966 by giving effect also co the jamabandi of s.ys 2020 to 2023. in ceiling proceedings initiated against the petitioners for their lands, the orders were passed by the respondents nos. 2 to 4 which are being challenged through this writ petition praying therein for setting aside the orders dated 17-11-1976 (ann-d) of the board of revenue (respondent no. 2); dated 25 8-1977 (ann-e) along with ann. b dated 9th june, 1975 of the revenue appellate authority (respondent no. 3), and dated 29-1-1972 (ann. a) of the assistant collector (ceiling) bundi (respondent no. 4).2. the assistant collector (respondent no. 4) while deciding the ceiling proceedings admitted the fact of partition but, declared 96 bighas 14 biswas of land as surplus one with the petition-against which the petitioners filed appeal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 28 1988 (HC)

Ram Pratap and 3 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and 50 ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-28-1988

Reported in : 1(1989)WLN(Rev)114

farooq hasan, j.1. the facts, simple enough as they are, have been complicated by the voluminous record built up by the petitioners. shorn of all unnecessary detail, the relevant facts are these. the petitioners, (ram pratap, kewal chand, padam kumar and mahaveer prasad), claimed themselves as khatedar tenants of the land situated in villages gamach (308 bighas 9 biswas) and bhawanipura (46 bigbas 10 biswas) on the ground that they had succeeded over the land inherited by dhanna and laxmi narain on the death of one, shri onkar. according to the petitioners, on the death of dhannalal, the parties partitioned co-parcenary joint family property and the mutation was attested before 1-4-1966 by giving effect also to the jamabandi of s.ys. 2020 to 2023. in ceiling proceedings initiated against the petitioners for their lands, the order were passed by the respondents nos. 2 to 4 which are being challenged through this writ petition praying therein for setting aside the orders dated 17-11-1976 (aux. d) of the board of revenue (respondent no. 2); dated 25-8-1977 (anx. e) along with (anx. b) dated 9-6-1975 of the revenue appellate authority (respondent no. 3), and dated 29-1-1972 (anx, a) of the assistant collector (ceiling) bundi (respondent no. 4).2. the asstt. collector (respondent no. 4) while deciding the ceiling proceedings admitted the fact of partition but, declared 96 bighas 14 biswas of land as surplus one with the petitioners-against which the petitioners filed appeal which .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 09 1988 (HC)

Mahipal Singh and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-09-1988

Reported in : 1(1989)WLN(Rev)32

1. a broad brush fundamental constitutional backdrop will help delineate the pristinely forensic cotroversy in the matter of writ jurisdiction of this court one of the fundamental principles in regard to the issuing of writ of certiorari is that it can be availed of only to remove or adjudicate or the validity of judicial acts, which expression includes the exercise of quasi judicial functions by administrative bodies or other authorities or persons in contrast to purely ministerial act. the second eseential feature of this writ is that the control exercised through it is not appellate but supervisory. in granting writ of certiorari, the superior, court does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. it merely demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palyably erroneous but does not substitute its own views or those of the inferior tribunal.2. mere formal or technical error, even though of law, will not how ever be sufficient to attract extraordinary jurisdiction under articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of india. where the errors cannot be said to be errors of law apparent on the face of the record, but they are merely errors in appreciation of documentary evidence or affidavits, errors in drawing inferences or omission to draw inference, or in other words, errors which a court sitting as a court sitting as a court of appeal only could have examined, there is no case for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 1988 (HC)

Kajod Vs. Board of Revenue

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-18-1988

Reported in : 1(1989)WLN(Rev)368

1. the petition is directed against the order (annexure-m) dated 14-12-1976 passed by the board of revenue. the impugned order is a common order in three proceedings which arose substantially in the same set of facts. the petitioner kajod was in unauthorised occupation of khasra no. 938 in village kachroli measuring 10 bighas 2 biswas, which was recorded as 'gair mumkin pokhar' (talai). proceedings under section 91 of the land revenue act were initiated by the tehsildar for his eviction. more ever, the petitioner approached the sdo, who passed an order altering the soil classification from 'gair mumkin' to 'barani'. as a result of this change, the land was allotted to the petitioner. members of the public, being aggrieved by this act of conversion of a land meant for public, preferred an appeal, which was allowed in the mean time, mutation having been made in favour of the petitioner kajod, that too was challenged it is these proceedings which came to be finally decided by the impugned order (annexure-m) dated 14-12-1976 passed by the board of revenue.2. learned counsel for the petitioner in fairness pointed out the decision of this court in jainarain v. the board of revenue in which it is already held that conversion of the land recorded in the record of rights as 'gair mumkin talai' into 'barani' and its allotment thereafter by, the sdo is contrary to law. the situation in the present case being similar, it must be held that conversion of the land in this manner and .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 25 1988 (HC)

Gokul Ram Vs. Ram Gopal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-25-1988

Reported in : 1988WLN(UC)349

j.r. chopra, j.1. this revision petition has been filed to quash the order of the learned sub-divisional magistrate, jodhpur dated 16-12-1985 whereby the learned lower court has maintained the order of attachment and the appointment of the receiver regarding the disputed land bearing khasras nos. 177, 188, 190, 368, 369, 370, 373, 596 and 597 and has ordered that the receiver shall remain in possession of the disputed land till the parties got their rights decided by a competent civil court.2. the facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision petition briefly stated are: that non petitioner no. 1 ramgopal, who is now dead and is represented by his legal heirs, initiated proceedings against non-petitioners nos. 2 to 8 in this petition on 3-10-1973 in the court of learned sub-divisional magistrate, jodhpur. the learned magistrate after drawing a preliminary order under section 145(1) cr pc ordered for the attachment of the land in dispute situate in village buchakala as he apprehended immediate breach of peace as regards the possession of the land in dispute and appointed a receiver to look-after the land in dispute and the crops which were standing and which may be raised in this land. the non-petitioners nos. 2 to 8 filed reply and alleged that non-petitioner no. 1 ramgopal is not in possession of this land. the case was then listed for the evidence of non-petitioner no. 1 but inspite of taking number of adjournments for number of years, he did not produce .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 08 1988 (HC)

Manohar Lal Vs. Jawahar Lal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-08-1988

Reported in : 1988WLN(UC)429

j.r. chopra, j.1. this petition is directed against the revisional order of the learned additional sessions judge, raisinghnagar dated 5-2-1986 whereby he has ordered that petitioner manoharlal will remain in possession of killas nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 & 15 of khasra no. 27 (old) and khasra no. 15 (new) of chak 4 m k.k. situated in tehsil raisingh nagar and non-petitioner om prakash will remain in possession of killas nos. 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of khasra no. 27 (old) and khasra no. 15 (new) of chak 4 m. k. k. situated in tehsil raisingh nagar and they will be free to cultivate and irrigate these killas. it was further ordered that they will be free to sell the killas to any one. this order was caused by the learned additional sessions judge, raisingh nagar on the basis of the separate written agreement undertaking filed by both the parties.2. the facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are:that shri ramswaroop, who happens to be the father of the petitioner manoharlal and non-petitioner jawaharlal executed a will on 4-10-1980 by which, killas nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 were given to the petitioner manoharlal and killas no. 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 were given to non-petitioner jawaharlal. it is alleged that in the year 1983, he executed another will and thereby, he gave killas nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11; 12. 19, 20, 21, and 22 to petitioner manohar lal and killas .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 1988 (HC)

Bhanwru and ors. Vs. Manak Chand and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-07-1988

Reported in : 1988WLN(UC)477

j.r. chopra, j.1. this petition under section 482 cr.pc has been filed against the revisional order of the learned sessions judge, pali dated 19-2-1982 whereby he has set aside the order of the learned sub-divisional magistrate, jetaran dated 16-10-1979, by which the learned magistrate has dropped the proceedings initiated under section 145 cr.pc in exercise of his powers under section 145(5) cr.pc and remanded the case back to him.2. the facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision petition briefly stated are that non-petitioner manak chand purchased land bearing khasra no. 897 in village lambia measuring 75 and 1/2 bighas from the petitioners on the basis of the sale deed. the mutation was recorded in favour of non-petitioner manakchand. this purchase was made in s.y. 2013. it is alleged that manakchand bequeathed 25 bighas of land each in favour of non-petitioners dharmchand and prakashchand and the land was mutated in their favour. the remaining 25 and 1/2 bighas of land remained with him. it is alleged that on 29-5-1979, manakchand went to cultivate this field on behalf of himself, and his grand sons dharmchand and prakashchand non-petitioner dharm chand at the relevant time was living outside and non-petitioner prakash chand was minor and so, manakchand was looking after this field. it is alleged that on that day the petitioners did not allow him to cultivate the field and threatened to kill him. on this, he reported the matter to the police on 30-5- .....

Tag this Judgment!


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