Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1989 Page 1 of about 41 results (0.009 seconds)

Jan 17 1989 (HC)

Ram Gopal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-17-1989

Reported in : AIR1991Raj67; 1992(2)WLC639; 1(1989)WLN(Rev)252

orderi.s. israni, j. 1. we have heard mr. mehriah, learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the judgment dated october, 19, 1967 of the board of revenue for rajasthan, ajmer. the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a twofold contention. the first is that the board of revenue did not go into the question as to whether the agricultural lands for which ceiling proceedings were initiated were ancestral property or not and without going into this question dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and his two sons viz. prem chand and ram swaroop. the second contention is that once the ceiling case is decided under chapter iii-b of rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 (for short 'the old ceiling-law') against the assessee and has also been decided under the provisions of rajasthan (imposition of ceiling on agricultural holdings) act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the new ceiling law') they cannot be reopened under subsection (2) of section 15 of the new ceiling law.2. we shall presently show that none of the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel has force, but before we will state the facts in brief.3. proceedings under old ceiling law and the rajasthan tenancy (fixation of ceiling on lands) government rules 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules'), were initiated by the sub-divisional officer, kota against the petitioner for the acquisition of the surplus lands possessed by him. those ceiling proceedings were dropped under order dated 29-4-75 in ceiling .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 1989 (HC)

Chandra Bhan Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-06-1989

Reported in : 1989(2)WLN628

farooq hasan, j.1. this is an appeal directed against the judgment dated 11-2-1981 passed by shri mohammed yamin, special judge, for a.c.d. cases jaipur, whereby the accused appellant has been found guilty for the offence under section 161 ipc and section 5(1)(d) r/w section 5(2), prevention of corruption act and he has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprison' ment and a fine of rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment on each count.2. brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that in the year 1975 complainant sita ram had purchased land of khasra no.456 of his village tunga and the kharif and ravi crop of this khasra number was cut and taken away by roop narain and vijay narain malies and a theft case came to be registered against them on an fir no. 34/76. thana bassi lodged by sita ram which was pending investigation. in that criminal case sitaram had to produce jamabandi and khasra girdawari in order to show his possession. sitaram, as such made an application to accused patwari on 3-12-76 and thereafter he kept meeting the accused and demanding the certified copies. on 10-1-77 the accused demanded rs. 25 as bribe for giving certified copies and the complainant agreed to pay and asked the accused to prepare copies and told him that he would give the money the next day.3. the case of prosecution further is that the complainant came to jaipur and submitted a report ex p.2 in acd, the next day i.e. on 11-1-77 to s.p. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1989 (HC)

Jag Mal Vs. Devi Lal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-03-1989

Reported in : 1989(2)WLN469

navin chandra sharma, j.1. this is an appeal by plaintiff jagmal against the appellate decree of the civil judge, ganganagar dated april 11, 1977 dismissing his appeal against the decree of munsif suratgarh passed in civil suit no. 1 of 1970 on april 20, 1972 where by his suit for permanent injunction was dismissed2 facts in brief are that in his above suit he alleged that he was marusidar of agricultural lands located in chak no. 24 jrk sq. no. 246 stone nos. 23 to 27 measuring 10 bighas. his said agricultural fields were irrigated through sanctioned water course passing through stone nos. 23 to 26 for last 18 years. smt. rama wife of. ramkaran and smt. sajna wife of devi lal had purchased land comprised in square nos. 23/247 and 24/247 in an auction conducted by cololonisation department. it was alleged that ramkaran, who was impleaded as defendant in the suit, made an application to executive engineer, pilibanga division, hanumangarh that the existing water course passing through sq. nos. 24/247, 25/247 and 26/247 may be altered and may be passed through the agricultural lands of the plaintiff. the executive engineer sent his proposals to the collector ganganagar in this regard and the same were accepted by the collector on october 23, 1969. the plaintiff challenged the recommendations of the executive engineer hanumangarh and the order of the collector ganganagar dated october 23, 1969 on various grounds enumerated in para 5 of the plaint. the plaintiff prayed that a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 1989 (HC)

Kailash Chand Kaushik Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-27-1989

Reported in : 1989(2)WLN397

v.s. dave, j.1. this is an appeal filed by the accused-appellant against the judgment of special judge, acd cases, jaipur dated 27-1-1981 by which he convicted the accused-appellant of offence under sections 161 ipc and sec 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption act (here in after referred to as 'the act') and sentenced for each of the offence to one year's ri and a fine of rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three month's ri.2. the learned judge, how ever, ordered that the substantive sentences pasted under both the offences shall run concurrently.3. accused appellant kailash chand on 10-10-1976 was a patwari of halka lalpura and in his jurisdiction wag a field belonging to complainant decoy, rokar chand in village chahaka bas. rokar chand filed a written application ex p1, before dy. s.p. anti corruption department, alwar on 11-10-1976 where in it was alleged by him that he is resident of pratapgarh tehsil thanagaji having his agricultural land in chahaka bas in patwar circle lalpura. he wanted to get entry of this land in his name because patwari halka lalpura has shown the cultivation of his sister kamla on his stand while in fact on the spot he was in cultivatory possession and mutation had also been done in her name and in name of his brother. he, therefore, wanted to file a suit for correction of entry in the court of sdo, rajgarh for which he wanted copy of jamabandi of sumvat years 2028 to 2032 and for taking copy of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 1989 (HC)

Dharam Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-14-1989

Reported in : AIR1990Raj59; 1989(2)WLN381

order1. by this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the notice issued for the meeting for the panchayat samiti, deogarh to be held on 18-3-89 for consideration of 'no confidence motion' against the petitioner and the petitioner has also sought relief for declaring section 39(11) of the rajasthan panchayat samitis and zilla parishads act, 1959 (for short 'the act') is ultra vires the provision of the principles of democracy as enshrined in the constitution of india.2. we may state a few facts relevant for the disposal of this writ petition.3. the petitioner is a pradhan of deogarh panchayat samiti elected on 5-7-88. a notice of intention to make motion of no confidence against the petitioner was submitted to the collector having jurisdiction over the panchayat samiti along with a copy of the proposed motion. the collector, in turn, issued notice to the members of the panchayat samiti along with a copy of the proposed motion. the notice was to the effect that the motion shall be considered in the meeting to be held in the office of panchayat samiti on 18-3-89 at 11.00 a.m. the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 1-3-89 (ex. 1) whereby the collector has called the meeting for consideration of no confidence motion oh the ground that the copy of the motion does not bear the names of the members of the panchayat samiti, who have submitted the notice of intention to make the motion and as such, the notice is bad.4. so far as this ground is concerned, the learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 1989 (HC)

Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-05-1989

Reported in : AIR1990Raj104; 1989WLN(UC)363

order1. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. motion of no confidence was moved against the present petitioner which was carried out in the meeting held on 5-5-1988. the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the meeting held on 5-8-88 on number of grounds. however, taking note of decision of this court in the case of rameshwar singh v. state of raj (air 1990 rajasthan 69), he has agreed only on the point that the motion of no-confidence was not declared for consideration by the presiding officer and there is a clear violation of rule 15 clause (4) of the rajasthan panchayat and nyaya panchayat (general) rules, 1961.2. mr. sharma with all his vehemance at his command submitted that it is the requirement of the democratic process that the motion of no-confidence should be discussed and there should be opportunity for discussion. he has invited our attention to para no. 6 of the reply to the writ petition. in this para no. 6, it is mentioned that the presiding officer has not declared that the motion is not open for discussion. in reply to para no. 6 of the writ petition, the respondents have submitted that the tehsildar has declared that the motion is open for discussion. it was further submitted that the presiding officer, tehsildar asked all the panchas, present at the time of meeting that whether they have to say, anything in respect of the motion for no confidence and in response to that, the eight panches and answering non-petitioner prahlad singh .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 1989 (HC)

Shiv Dutta Parikh Vs. Bhagirath Singh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-24-1989

Reported in : AIR1990Raj130; 1989(2)WLN232

order1.we have heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the only question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the notice of motion under rule 14 of rajasthan panchayat general rules, 1961 can be delivered to the district development officer and whether he can call a meeting. rule 14 provides that any parich of a panchayat desiring to move a motion of no-confidence against its sarpanch or up-sarpanch shall deliver or cause to be delivered a notice of such motion in writing to the deputy district development officer. the expression deputy district development officer has not been defined in the panchayat act. but clause (16) of section 2 provides that words and expressions used but not defined in this act and defined in the rajasthan panchayat samities' and zila parishads act, 1959, shall have the meanings assigned to them in the later. in the panchayat samities and zila parishads act, 1959. the expression district development officer has been defined to mean the collector of the district, dy. district development officer, or additional district development officer as such have not been defined. even in the rajasthan panchayat samiti act and zila parishads act the expression additional district development officer and deputy district development officer have been used.the question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is as to whether for the purposes of rule 14 of the rajasthan panchayat general rules, 1961, the district development .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 1989 (HC)

Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-11-1989

Reported in : 1989WLN(UC)42

1. looking to the nature of the controversy involved, we have issued the show cause notice of short duration on april 26, 1989. the notice was served on the non-petitioner but no reply has been filed. mr. pareek made a request to give time to file reply but because the meeting is to be held on may 12, 1989 for consideration of the no-confidence motion against up-sarpanch, gram panchayat, nagar fort, panchayat samiti, deoli, we declined his request. even otherwise we find no reason to allow time to the non-petitioner to file reply to show cause notice.2. the petitioner is one of the panchas of village panchayat, nagar fort, district tonk the election of the posts of the sarpanch and the panchas of the aforesaid panchayat was held in june 1988 and one shri paras mal jain came to be elected as the up-sarpanch. on march 24, 1989, the petitioner a panch and shiv raj singh another panch of the panchayat, moved a motion of no-confidence under section 19 of the rajasthan panchayat act, 1953 (for short 'the act'). the chief executive officer, zila parishad, tonk under its notice dated april 4, 1989 convened a special meeting at 11.00 a.m. on 19-4-1988 for consideration of the motion of no-confidence against shri paras mal jain. the tehsildar, deoli was directed to be the presiding officer of the said meeting. when the petitioner along with other panchs who are said to have been six and thus in all as many as seven appeared at the place of the meeting, they were informed that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 28 1989 (HC)

Ram Swaroop and ors. Vs. Bholu Ram

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-28-1989

Reported in : AIR1991Raj56; 1989(2)WLN661

m.c. jain, actg. c.j. 1. hon'ble the chief justice vide his order dated 10-4-89 has referred the following question to be decided by a larger bench:'whether the provisions of order 19, c.p.c. apply for deciding an application for grant of temporary injunction under order 39, c.p.c.?'2. the learned chief justice noticed conflict between a single bench decision of this court in kusum kumar choudhary v. supra films (1971 rlw 282) and the single bench decision of the andhra pradesh high court in ali bin aifan (air 1983 ap 114) in which reference was made to some other decisions and the learned chief justice also made reference to a division bench decision in kanihyalal v. meghraj (air 1954 nag 260). in the andhra pradesh decision it was held that order 19, c.p.c. is applicable for deciding the application under order 39, c.p.c. and in the nagpur division bench decision the expression 'any application' in order 19, rule 2, c.p.c. was held to mean 'any application' under the code since the code itself does not define the word 'application' nor does it make any distinction between one application and another. in view of these decisions hon'ble the chief justice was of the view that it would be proper to reconsider the correctness of the view taken in kusum kumar choudhary v. supra films (supra) wherein the learned judge took the view that provisions of order 19, rule 2, c.p.c. is not applicable to an application for grant of temporary injunction under order 39, c.p.c.3. we have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 16 1989 (HC)

Doongar Chand Dangi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-16-1989

Reported in : 1990(1)WLN247

j.r. chopra, j.1. the grievance of the petitioner is that a charge-sheet was served on him by respondent no. 3 the deputy inspector general of police, jodhpur (for short the d i.g.p. here in) on 13-6-1984 alleging that he did not give timely information about the procession of the bhartiya janta party which proceeded to court on 9-4-1984 and he also failed to give information about the incident which took place in kamla nehru college on 2-4-1984. an enquiry was held under rule 17 of the rajastaan civil services (classification, control and appeal) rules and the digp vide order annex. 1 dated 31-8-1984 held the petitioner guilty of the above charges and punished him with stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect. act appeal was preferred to the director general of police and that too came to be dismissed vide annexure 2 dated 5-6-1985. a review petition was filed before his excellency the governor of rajasthan and that also came to be dismissed vide annexure-3 dated 9-3-1989.2. the contention of the petitioner that initiation of enquiry proceedings against the petitioner by the digp was totally unauthorised because the dig is not his head of the department. it is true that the inspector general of police, the head of the department, has delegated his powers to impose all penalties under rule 17 of the rajasthan civil services (classification, control and appeal) rules to the digp vide his order dt. 21/23-12-85 and those powers have been delegated with effect .....

Tag this Judgment!

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