Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 2000 Page 1 of about 139 results (0.012 seconds)

Apr 05 2000 (HC)

Raman Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-05-2000

Reported in : 2001CriLJ800; 2001(2)WLC632; 2000(3)WLN39

..... telephonic talks with co-accused phootar mal and mr. sanjeev r. bhatt and some of his phone-calls had also been taped. one narain singh kharabera played a role of mediator and after taking all care and precautions, an agreement was signed between co-accused phootar mal and mohan lal - the original tenant - partner of the complainant's brother for vacating .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 2000 (HC)

Gauri Shankar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-23-2000

Reported in : 2000(4)WLC711; 2000(3)WLN290

j.c. verma, j.1. agricultural land comprising of khasra nos. 156, 157, 158, 163, 164, 165, 166 and well no. 162 was maufi land of thakur shri gopal through pujari shri hari vallabh das. the maufi land was resumed under the land reforms and resumption of jagir act and the land had vested in the state. under the act, mafidars were to set compensation of the resumed land as per the principles laid down in the act and the rules itself.2. it is the case of the petitioners that they were the purchasers of the resumed land from smt. bhuri who according to the petitioners was tenant of the land. it is stated that deity - respondent no. 4 was land holder and disputed land was not in khudkast of the land holder. smt. bhuri a recorded tenant of land holder is said to have sold her khatedari tenant rights to the petitioners vide registered sale-deed in july, 1968. mutation was also done in favour of the petitioner gaurishankar on 28.2.1969 and thereafter, the petitioner was recorded as khatedar tenant. they are in possession since 1968, it is so alleged, it is the contention of the petitioner that despite the fact that compensation had been taken by respondent no. 4 at the time of resumption of maufi, but still in the year 1984, an application was made before the collector, jaipur to the effect that the land in question was belonging to bhog of thakurji and that name of petitioner had been wrongly recorded in the revenue record in the name of respondents and prayed for corrections of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 2000 (HC)

Ladu Ram Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-22-2000

Reported in : 2007(3)WLN80

rajesh balia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the facts giving rise to this petition, by one ladu ram s/o jiya ram challening the order passed by the board of revenue dated 8th march 1995 and order passed by sub-divisional officer dated 28th march 1987 annx. 3 & annx. 1 respectively, may be summarised as under.3. the land in a joint khata was held by two brothers ramu ram and raju ram, ramu ram had three sons; bhagirath, phusa ram and dalu ram, bhagirath's sons are respondents no. 4 to 6, phusa ram's sons are respondents no. 7 to 10 and dalu ram's sons in the present petition are respondents no. 15 to 18. raju ram had only one son jiya ram. jiya ram had two sons uda ram and ladu ram. the said land was partitioned by a decree passed by the court of sub-divisional officer, suratgarh on 23.8.1976 in suit no. 12/1972 under which sons of dalu ram, who are respondents no. 15 to 18 in this petition, were, allotted 42 bighas and 14 biswas of land in their share comprised in murabbas no. 98/385, 99/385 and 98/386 in chak 8 spd. during the pendency of the partition suit, the respondents no. 15 to 18 have sold 44 bighas and 11 biswas of land in favour of respondent no. 3 manphool s/o puran ram and his three brothers mani ram, bhup singh and girdhari, respondents no. 12 to 14. after the decree of partition was passed on 23.8.1976, the land falling to the share of respective share-holders was mutated in their respective names. since the 'transferees from respondents no. 15 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 2000 (HC)

Chiman Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-18-2000

Reported in : AIR2000Raj206; 2000(2)WLC1

b.j. shethna, j.1. this petition has been placed before us on a reference made by our learned brother hon'ble v.g. palshikar, j. on 14-5-1999. it is a brief order, which we would like to reproduce, which is as under :--'dated 14-5-1999.s. b. writ petition no. 1688/83hon'ble shri v. g. palshikar. j.mr. d.s. shishodia for the appellant, mr. vijay vishnoi, for the respondent.in this petition, the order of the collector and other authorities is challenged on several grounds. the important question, however, which arise in this case is regarding jurisdiction of the collector to invoke revisional powers under section 27a of the rajasthan panchayat act. 1953 and the rules made thereunder can be exercised at any time as the section provides no limitation for such exercise. there are divergent view on the point and at least two contradictory judgments of the single bench including myself. i am of the view that though there is no period of limitation prescribed the reasonable period as contemplated by the residuary article of the indian limitation act would apply, conversely no limitation can apply is also a view taken by another single bench. even division bench relyingon the point may need harmonise construction for interpretation. in such circumstances i feel that authoritative pronouncement by this hon'ble court on this question of law is necessary as the question is repeated with regular intervals.therefore, place the papers before your lordship the chief justice for appropriate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 2000 (HC)

Smt. Jaya Ben and ors. Vs. Gaffar Khan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-05-2000

Reported in : 2000(3)WLN200

sunil kumar garg, j.1. all these five special appeals are being decided by a common judgment as they all arise out of same accident that took place on 8.4.1972 and in all these special appeals, common questions of law and facts are involved.2. all these five special appeals under section 18 of the rajasthan high court ordinance, 1949 have been filed by the appellants-petitioners against the judgment dated 9.7.1985 passed by the learned single judge of this court by which the learned single judge while dismissing the five appeals filed by gaffar khan (respondent-1), reduced the quantum of compensation awarded by the motor accident claims tribunal, jodhpur in each case and also dismissed the cross objections filed by the present appellants-petitioners and also held both insurance companies not liable.3. brief facts giving rise to these special appeals are as follows-on 8.4.1972, smt. jaya ben, appellant in d.b. civil special appeal no. 28/1985 alongwith others, namely, kirti ben, appellant in d.b. civil special appeal no. 32/85, smt. rama laxmi appellant in d.b. civil special appeal no. 33/1985i lalita ben, appellant in d.b. civil special appeal no. 31/1985 and smt. bhanumati, appellant in d.b. civil special appeal no. 30/85 hired a taxi bearing no. rjt 1058 at falna station for going to ranakpur. the owner of the said taxi was gaffar khan (respondent no. 1) and its driver was deva ram (respondent no. 4) and the said taxi was insured with the united fire and general insurance .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2000 (HC)

Rudhmal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-04-2000

Reported in : AIR2000Raj160; 2000(4)WLC124

orderarun madan, j.1. by way of this writ petition, rudhmal son of chunnilal (petitioner) has sought as writ of prohibition for directing the jaipur development authority (respondent no. 2) not to:--(i) dispossess the petitioner from 10 blghas of land situated in bir sarkari of jhotwara patwar area tehsil jaipur. (ii) interfere with his possession and cultivation of the said land in dispute without acquiring it in accordance with law, and (iii) demolish his thatched sheds, cow sheds and kacha houses existing on the land in dispute.2. the facts relevant for deciding this writ petition, briefly stated, are that the land of khasra nos. 187 to 191 and 198 of village birsarkari of jhotwara patwar area of jaipur tehsil was purchased in the year 1968 by nanuram (younger brother of chunnilal who is father of the petitioner) from chogan son of kisna modi. the petitioner's case is thatnanuram having no issues/children was living with his elder brother chunnilal and therefore, after death of nanuram his property including the aforementioned land which was in his khatedari tenancy, succeeded/ inherited in the petitioner and his brothers. according to him, though in revenue record, total area of aforesaid six khasras was recorded measuring 27 bighas one biswas but its actual total area at the sites of the land was 37 bighas 1 biswa and in other words, 10 blghas of land (which was also in actual and physical possession of the petitioner and his brothers. since the time of their predecessor .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 2000 (HC)

Smt. Jaya Ben and 4 ors. Vs. Gaffar Khan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-05-2000

Reported in : II(2001)ACC285; 2000(3)WLC690

sunil kumar garg, j.1. all these five special appeals are being decided by a common judgment as they all arise out of same accident that took place on 8.4.1972 and in all these special appeals, common questions of law and facts are involved.2. all these five special appeals under section 18 of the rajasthan high court ordinance, 1949 have been filed by the appellants-petitioners against the judgment dated 9.7.1985 passed by the learned single judge of this court by which the learned single judge while dismissing the five appeals filed by gaffar khan (respondent 1), reduced the quantum of compensation awarded by the motor accident claims tribunal, jodhpur in each case and also dismissed the cross objections filed by the present appellants-petitioners and also held both insurance companies not liable.3. brief facts giving rise to these special appeals are as follows:on 8.4.1972, smt. jaya ben, appellant in d.b. civil special appeal no. 28/1985 along with others namely, kirti ben, appellant in d.b. civil special appeal no. 32/85, smt. rama laxmi, appellant in d.b. civil special appeal no. 33/1985, lalita ben, appellant in d.b. civil special appeal no. 31/1985 and smt. bhanumati, appellant in d.b. civil special appeal no. 30/85 hired a taxi bearing no. rjt 1058 at falna station for going to ranakpur. the owner of the said taxi was gaffar khan (respondent no. 1) and its driver was deva ram (respondent no. 4) and the said taxi was insured with the united fire and general insurance .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 2000 (HC)

Smt. Govind Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-12-2000

Reported in : 2001(1)WLC64; 2001(2)WLN71

orderlakshmanan, cj.1. heard both the sides.(2). this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4th november, 1997 delivered by the learned single judge of this court in s.b. civil writ petition no. 4028 of 1995. the appellant, wife of the deceased land-owner, filed the vvrit petition claiming compensation for the land measuring 5 bighas 10 biswas which has been utilised by the state of rajasthan for construction of the road.(3). the short facts of the case are as follows:the appellant's husband purchased land measuring 21 bighas and 17 biswas falling in khasra no. 57 of village chopasani district jodhpur (annex. 1). after purchase of the land in question the mutation was entered in the name of the husband of the appellant. in the year 1977-78 during the famine operations the respondents con-structed a road through the land of the appellant in which the land to the extent of 5 bighas and 10 biswas was covered by the road. after construction of the road the mutation in the record was made in the name of he public works department to the extent of 5 bighas and 10 biswas (annex.2). thus, the land stood in the name of the appellant's husband was reduced to that of 16 biswas and 7 biswas (annex.3). the husband of the appellant died in the year 1982. though the respondents have con-structed the road through the land in question taking away 5 bighas and 10 biswas of land, neither the land acquisition proceedings were initiated nor any compensation was determined and paid to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2000 (HC)

Lrs. of Raghunath Singh Vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-04-2000

Reported in : 2000(2)WLN107

j.c. verma, j.1. the petitioner is challenging the impugned orders passed by the assistant collector dated 18.11.1976 (annex-6), revenue appellate authority dated 12-4.1982 (annex-7) and board of revenue dated 9.12.1982 and 20.12.1982 (annexs-9 and 10).2. it is stated that one thakur ram singh son of thakur kishan singh, resident of village bhankhari tehsil rajgarh, real uncle of the petitioner had bequeathed all his properties (movable or immovable) in favour of the petitioner by a registered will dated 26.11,1965. the testator died on 9.1.1996. mutation of the agricultural lands comprising of khasra nos. 42, 44, 46 and 48 was also sanctioned in favour of the petitioner.3. one hari singh, brother of the petitioner claimed to be adopted son of the testator. hari singh has since died and the respondent nos. 4 to 8 are legal representatives of hari singh. he also produced a will and, therefore, the petitioner. filed a suit for permanent injunction against him u/s 188 of the rajasthan tenancy act in the court of assistant collector, rajgarh along with the application u/s 212 of the rajasthan tenancy act. a receiver was appointed by the orders of the court on 18.4.1968. the petitioner had filed another suit in regard to the residential house left by thakur ram singh, basing his claim on the same will. respective issues were framed as claimed. the suit in regard to house was decreed in favour of the plaintiff petitioner on 15.1.1973 vide annex. 4. on the appeal being filed by hari .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 2000 (HC)

Smt. Roop Raj Laxmi Vs. the Sub-divisional Officer and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-13-2000

Reported in : 2001(4)WLC533; 2007(3)WLN469

j.c. verma, j.1. maharwal sangram singhji was the former jagirdar of samod. he died on 15.2.1963 leaving behind him his son rajeshwar singh and widow roop raj laxmi.2. chapter iii-b was introduced in the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 vide act no. iv of 1960 published in rajasthan gazette dated 21.3.1960 which had come into force w.e.f. 15.12.1963 vide notification dated 26.11.1963. it was a socio-economic legislation. it was decided to acquire the surplus land from the person in whose hands the land was concentrated for fair distribution to the land less agriculturists and other deserving persons with a view to remove the disparity in the holding of agricultural land and to increase the agricultural production. section 30-e provided that the land would be surrendered from the date notified by the state government and ultimately the date so notified was notified as 1.4.1966 for the purpose of declaring the land to be surplus is the hand of khatedar so entered in the revenue board on the date of notification.3. earlier this very writ petition (by the hon'ble single judge) had been dismissed on 4.9.1986 holding therein that rules 17(2) and 17(4) of the rules, and the rights given thereunder the rules, could not survive in view of the definition of the family as defined under section 30-b of the rajasthan tenancy act. rules were held to be ultravires so far they include hindu undivided family and no notional partition could be considered in the light of the definition given in .....

Tag this Judgment!


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