Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 1999 Page 1 of about 70 results (0.010 seconds)

Jan 11 1999 (HC)

Raju Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-11-1999

Reported in : 1999(2)WLC610; 1999(1)WLN65

b.j. shethna, j.1.on the basis of two judgments of this court dated 4.4.97 delivered in (i) sb civil writ petition no. 775/93 and (ii) judgment dated 11.4.97 delivered in sb civil writ petition no. 1160/94 learned counsel shri vijay bishnoi submitted that impugned order passed by the board of revenue is liable to be set aside because there was a delay of as many as 24 years in setting aside the decree by accepting the reference.2. relying upon the case of anandi lal v. state of rajasthan reported in 1995 (1) rlr 555, writ petition no. 775/93 was allowed as there was a delay of 13 years in making reference. what were the facts, have not been stated in that judgment dated 4.4.97. similarly, writ petition no. 1160/94 was allowed by this court relying upon anandi lal's cause (supra). but the facts were not stated in the judgment dated 11.4.97.3. in this case, according to mr. bishnoi, there is a delay of 24 years. reference order dated 30.3.98 (annex.4) in this petition is self explanatory. on facts of this case, the board of revenue found that the assistant collector illegally granted khatedari rights in favour of petitioner raju ram, therefore, the decree dated 23.7.74 as well as mutation no. 1162 dated 5.1.83 were set aside and the land was again ordered to be recorded in the name of uda s/o galka -present respondent no. 3.from the reference order (annex.4), it is clear that land belonging to schedule caste cannot be transferred in the name of non-schedule caste person. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 1999 (HC)

Bachan Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-27-1999

Reported in : 1999CriLJ1952

orderg.l. gupta, j.1. this petition is directed against the order dated 30-7-1998 passed by the addl. chief judicial magistrate, karanpur whereby he directed framing of the charge under section 120b, 467, 468 and 199, ipc against petitioners bachan singh alias ranjeet singh, hardeep singh, umed singh and others and under section 120b, and 199, ipc against petitioner suba sadiq.2. mr. samdariya contended that hardeep singh was 'panch' and suba sadiq was 'sarpanch' and umaid singh was patwari at the relevant time and as such they were public servants and could not be prosecuted without the sanction of the state government under section 120b, cr.p.c. and charges could not be framed against them. his further contention was that bachan singh, petitioner himself is the son of bhag singh in whose name the land stood and he being the rightful claimant of the property, charges could not be framed against him also.3. i have gone through the order of the trial court as also the papers which have been made available by mr. samdariya. the facts of the case are slightly complicated. jito d/o bhag singh lodged are port at police station keshrisinghpura with the allegations that her father bhag singh was a refugee. he was allotted some 24 bighas of land in chak s.k. murabba no. 72, in his name and in the name of her mother kartaro and brother nathu ram for which mutation entry no. 68 was made in the record. thereafter her father, mother and brother died. she, therefore, applied for mutation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1999 (HC)

Vijaypal Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-18-1999

Reported in : AIR1999Raj131; 1999(2)WLC600; 1999(1)WLN76

orderb.j. shethna, j.1. the present petitioners, who are not the original allottee of the land in question have filed this petition and challenged the impugned order dated 20-8-1998 (annexure p/4) passed by the learned special judge (iii), pong dam oustees, sriganganagar, whereby, the allotment made in favour of original allottee deceased roshan lal on 16-7-1972 has been declared as cancelled in view of the breach of conditions committed by the deceased allottee roshan lal and the land in question has been vested within the state government.2. learned counsel shri sidhu for the petitioner vehemently challenged the impugned order (annexure p/4) passed by the learned special judge on the ground that there was no breach of conditions of rules, 1972 as the land in question was legally transferred by the original allottee deceased roshan lal in favour of present petitioners by way of will. he further submits that as per the will dated 5-5-1989 the mutation entry (annexure p/2) was also made in the name of petitioners on 31-12-1991. he, therefore, submits that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.3. in case of gurdeep singh v. special judge, pong dam oustees matters, sriganganagar reported in 1998 (3) wlc 607 : (1998 aihc 4678), the learned single judge of this court has clearly held that, 'the petitioner, who is transferee, from the oustee allottee did not get any rights whatsoever by such transfer because of the terms of allotment and, as such, void. the possession of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 1999 (HC)

Mohd. Sadiq Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-11-1999

Reported in : 1999CriLJ4043

ordern.n. mathur, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-3-82 passed by the special judge, jodhpur convicting the accused appellant of offence under section 161,i.p.c. and section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption act and sentencing him to undergo 1 year's r.i. and to pay a fine of rs. 500/- and in default of payment to further undergo 1 month's s. i. on each count.2. the prosecution case is that on 6-9-76 pw/1 tejaram submitted a written complaint before the addl. superintendent of police (anti corruption), jaipur stating that he is a resident of village dabaria. after the death of his father he wanted to get 62 bigha of land mutated in his name and in the name of his 3 other brothers. he has submitted an application in that regard before the patwari, basroli. he had put the thumb impression thereon. he enquired about the progress in the said matter from the patwari on 4-9-76, on which, he told him that he will required to pay a sum of rs. 100/- as bribe for doing the said work. the patwari also told him that he may pay sum of rs. 50/- on 7-9-76 and rest of the amount later on. he did not disclose the name of the patwari saying that he does not remember the name. it appears that the said application was forwarded to dy. superintendent of police (anti corruption), ajmer for arranging the trap. the complainant pw/1 tejaram submitted the said application before the dy. superintendent of police (anti corruption), ajmer on 9-9-76. as tejaram was required to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 1999 (HC)

The State of Raj. Vs. Smt. Shyamkaur and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-01-1999

Reported in : 1999(3)WLC240; 1999(1)WLN162

b.j. shethna, j.1. in the instant case, initially proceedings were initiated under the old ceiling act against one sanyam singh which was subsequently dropped after the trial on the ground that he had no excess land as per the order date 3.7.71. under the new ceiling act also proceedings were initiated against him but they were also dropped. however, lateron, in exercise of powers under section 15(2) of the new ceiling act the case was reopened under the old ceiling act by an order dated 10.7.87. after a period of almost 7 years the addl. collector by his impugned order dated 18.4.95 (annex. 1) held that sanyam singh had excess land of 16.3 bighas. that order was challenged by the l.rs. of deceased sanyam singh, who died during the pendency of proceedings before the addl. collector, by way of appeal before the board of revenue, which was allowed on 27.3.98 (annex.2). the same has been challenged in this petition by the petitioner-state of rajasthan under article 227 of the constitution of india.2. learned counsel shri tatia for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the board of revenue committed a grave error in allowing the appeal of the respondents. he submitted that the addl. collector has rightly considered the national share of the wife of the assessee in the ancestral property and divided the holding into four equal shares. however, the board of revenue committed an error in not considering the separate share of wife. before appreciating the arguments advanced by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1999 (HC)

Danji Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-30-1999

Reported in : AIR2000Raj59

orderbhagwati prasad, j.1. petitioner in this writ petition has raised a grievance regarding 500 sq. meters of land, which was allotted to him by a resolution of the municipal board, mt. abu dated 29-6-1964 for 7 years vide annex. 1. after the land was allotted to petitioner vide annex. 1 he was handed over the possession of the land on 1-4-1966. petitioner after obtaining the possession of the land started running a tea stall on the said land.2. a notice was issued by the tahsildar, abu road to petitioner enquiring about the allotment of the land to petitioner. copy of the notice has been submitted by the petitioner as annex. 3. petitioner appeared before the tehsildar pursuant to the notice annex. 3 and submitted about the allotment of land and the possession given to him. thetehsildar (revenue) abu road initiated proceedings against the petitioner. these proceedings concluded by the tehsildar by observing that the land was given to the petitioner by the municipal board on lease of 7 years. the tahsildar also held that the land belongs to the state government though the same is situated within the municipal limits. the tehsildar observed that the land can be allotted to the petitioner and it is not necessary to order the dispossession. the order of the tehsildar has been produced on record as annex.4.3. the chief manager, delwara temple, mt. abu filed an appeal against the order annex. 4. the collector, sirohi observed that the appeal is premature as there is only a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 16 1999 (HC)

Teja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-16-1999

Reported in : 2000CriLJ244; 2000(1)WLC13

n.n. mathur, j. 1. by way of this habeas corpus petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, petitioner detenu teja ram seeks to challenge the order of his detention dated 2-6-1999.2. the government of rajasthan having regard to the circumstances prevailing i.e. the anti-social activities in various parts of the state and that certain undesirable elements acting prejudicial to the security of the state and prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order with a view to prevent in effective manner by order dated 11-3-1999 in exercise of power under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the national security act, hereinafter referred to as 'the act', directed all the district magistrates in the state to exercise the power under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the act during the period from 11-3-99 to 10-6-99. by another notification dt. 4-6-99, all the district magistrates in the state of rajasthan have been given powers under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the act for the further period from 11-6-99 to 10-9-99.3. mr. r. n. arvind, district magistrate, banner, by the impugned order, on being satisfied that the activities of detenu teja ram are prejudicial to the public order in exercise of powers under section 4(2) of the act, directed to detain him in central jail, jodhpur. the order of detention was executed on 3-6-99 and since then, the detenu is in central jail, jodhpur. the grounds of detention along with the documents were served on the petitioner under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 07 1999 (HC)

Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Guwari and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-07-1999

Reported in : AIR2000Raj140; 2000(2)WLC605

orderb.j. shethna, j.1. all these petitions are disposed of by this common order as the same are arising out of common impugned judgment and order passed by the board of revenue on 10-09-97 whereby 8 revision petitions filed by the petitioner rajasthan slate electricity board (for short, 'rseb') have been decided.2. there is a chequered history in these cases. the private respondents were recorded khatedar-tenants of the land which was initially acquired by the state of rajasthan (mines department) for palana lignite project (plp) on 25-03-1965. the compensation was also awarded and paid to the land owners.3. however, on 01-10-1981, the mining department addressed a letter dated 01-10-1981 to the collector, bikaner staling that the land acquired for plp may be handed over to the rseb for construction of thermal power plant. accordingly, the collector, bikaner by his orders dated 17-02-1981 and 04-03-1981 ordered that the land in question may be recorded in the name of rseb in the revenue records and possession of the same he handed over to the rseb. accordingly, the tehsildar. bikaner attested the mutations in favour of the rseb with the report dated 22-03-1981 taking over possession.4. it was challenged by various khatedars by filing sparate appeals which were dismissed on 01-07-1981. second appeals filed by the khatedars before the revenue appellate authority. bikaner were also dismissed on 03-04-1982. however, the revision petitions filed against the same before the board .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 1999 (HC)

Budha Ram Vs. the State and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-09-1999

Reported in : AIR1999Raj249; 2000(1)WLC604

orderarun madan, j.1. the petitioner who has described himself as a landless agriculturist has filed this petition on the grounds inter alia that he filed a suit for declaration of his khatedari rights in respect of a land in khasra no. 520 measuring 10 bighas and land measuring 11 bighas and 4 biswas in khasra no. 125 situated in village rajgan, tehsil mandawar, district alwar. the said suit was decreed ex parte by the assistant collector kishangarh bas, district alwar vide order dated 11-3-1980. from the perusal of the decree dated 11-3-1980, it is apparent that the plaintiff's suit was decreed against the pro forma defendants. the plaintiff had described himself as tenant in possession of agricultural land falling in khasra no. 520 measuring 10 bighas and khasra no. 125 measuring 11 bighas and 4 biswas as aforesaid and it was accordingly prayed that he is not liable to be evicted by the tehsildar who may grant him sanad after realising the value of the land after its assessment. since the suit was decreed ex parte, though the said order was challenged in appeal, when this fact was brought to the notice of the collector, alwar, he took note of this glaring anomaly that how a decree had been drawn up in respect of a land which was an evacuee property. thus taking note of the apparent jurisdictional error made by 'the assistant collector, the collector, alwar issued show cause notice to the petitioner, calling upon the latter to explain as to how he was entitled to claim .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 1999 (HC)

Smt. Vandana Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-20-1999

Reported in : 2000(2)WLC564

v.s. kokje, j. 1. the appellant smt. vandana was elected to the zila parishad, udaipur in the month of january 1995. she was elected zila pramukh of the zila parishad, udaipur on 20th january, 1995. a no confidence motion against her was initiated on 2nd feb. 1999. the meeting of the members of the zila parishad, udaipur was requisitioned to be held on 23rd feb. 1999 in the office of zila parishad, udaipur to consider the motion. after holding the meeting, the collector, udaipur, who was presiding over the meeting declared that the motion of no confidence was carried. thereafter smt. sajjan katara was alleged to have been nominated as zila pramukh on 27-2-1999. 2. the appellant-petitioner challenged the proceedings of the meeting in which the no confidence motion was declared to be carried out as also the nomination of smt. sajjan katara, by filing a petition in this court. several grounds were raised in the petition including the question of fairness and validity of the procedure adopted at the meeting by the presiding officer, as also the alleged nomination of smt. sajjan katara as the chairperson. 3. the learned single judge dismissed petition on the ground that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had misled the court by making false statements. certain observations in the nature of strictures were passed against the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and cost of rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the petitioner and it was directed that the cost shall be .....

Tag this Judgment!


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