Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 2001 Page 1 of about 153 results (0.027 seconds)

Oct 09 2001 (HC)

Chandra Devi and anr. (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-09-2001

Reported in : 2002CriLJ1075; RLW2003(3)Raj1985; 2002(1)WLC685

..... it is established that soon before her death geeta devi was wither treated with cruelty or harassed with the demand of dowry.9. phool chand (pw. 3) who was the mediator in arranging the marriage of geeta devi with appellant jai singh, stated in his cross examination that no demand of dowry was made at the time of marriage and in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 08 2001 (HC)

Smt. Nidhi Dalela Vs. Deepak Dalela

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-08-2001

Reported in : AIR2002Raj128; II(2002)DMC182; 2002(1)WLC737

..... the car to deepak's house but he found all the doors locked. there deepak's friend aaditya came and told that he knew nothing. aaditya promised to act as mediator and pursuaded him and nidhi to return back to the house.25. pradeep (dw.5) cousin of nidhi. deposed that he had seen deepak and arvind in the drawing room .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 2001 (HC)

indrapuri Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-31-2001

Reported in : 2002(3)WLN122

k.s. rathore, j.1. the petitioner is housing co-operative society registered under the rajasthan co-operative societies act, 1965 in the year 1970 bearing registration no. 2490l. the aims and objects of the petitioner society are to provide housing accommodation to its member on 'no profit no loss' basis.2. the petitioner society purchased the land bearing khasra no. 2 measuring 16 bigha 17 biswas situated in village mahapura/kukarkheda, tehsil jaipur from the khatedar shri ram singh son of shri ishardan singh charan through a registered sale deed which was executed on 3.8.1970.3. after purchase of the said land the petitioner society checked out a plan for construction of residential houses over the aforesaid land in accordance with the by-laws and rules made by the erstwhile urban improvement trust, jaipur and the map of plan was also submitted on 28.2.1983 with the u.i.t., jaipur.4. thereafter, the petitioner society applied for sanction of sub-division of the aforesaid land and deposited an amount of rs. 2100/- on 28.2.1983 along with the application to the erstwhile urban improvement trust, jaipur. on account of registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner society on 3.8.1970, the mutation in the name of the society had also been recorded in the revenue record of the tehsil jaipur by the order dated 30.1.1988 of the naib tehsildar, jaipur.5. mr. g.l. pareek appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the site plan was prepared and submitted with the u .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 08 2001 (HC)

Dara Singh and ors. Vs. Mehar Singh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-08-2001

Reported in : 2002(2)WLN186

mr. balia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. these two writ petitions are raising common issue of law, and therefore, the same are being heard and decided together.3. in d.b. civil writ petition no. 1554/1991 a suit was filed by respondent no. 1 to 3 and heirs of chand singh respondent no. 4 to 8 against the petitioners dara singh and indar singh for partition of agricultural property held by one sundar singh. petitioners as well as respondent no. 1 to 3 and chandan singh were the sons of sundar singh. sundar singh is alleged to have executed a will in favour of the petitioners bequeathing his entire agricultural land admeasuring about 48 bighas in favour of the petitioners. the plaintiffs respondents have challenged the authority of sundar singh to 'execute will and divert the ordinary rule of intestate succession. ultimately, the board of revenue while affirming the order of the revenue appellate authority has held that the property in question was self acquired property of sundar singh. though under the ordinary law which sunder singh had full disposition power but on account of special provisions contained in section 13 or the rajasthan colonization act, as it stood at the time of the death of sunder singh, which prohibited transfer of property by will also in the lands governed by or under the colonization act, the disposition power of sunder singh was inhibited.4. it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners of this writ petition, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 2001 (HC)

Ram Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-09-2001

Reported in : AIR2001Raj381

r. balia, j. 1. heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. this writ petition which has been referred to division bench as a public interest litigation is to challenge annexure-9 dt. 22nd august, 1998 by which the land allotted to school on 6-10-95 was cancelled and declared as a government land and thereafter the said land has been allotted to respondents nos. 6, 7 and 8. the allotment made in favour of the school was cancelled on a review petition filed by respondent no. 7, surendra kumar s/o shri udami ram. 3. the chequered history of the case shows that the respondents nos. 6, 7 and 8 through an indigenous device indirectly obtained the allotment of the very same land which was made in favour of the school and earlier litigation to secure that land by brother of respondents nos. 6 and 7 and the respondent no. 8 labh singh himself has failed before this court. 4. the genesis of present controversy dates back to 1974, in chak 4 snm, tehsil hanumangarh in district sri ganganagar, three bighas of land bearing killa nos. 14, 17 and 24 were allotted for a primary school by the order of collector, ganganagar dt. june 3, 1974. prithvi raj s/o shri udami ram, and brother of respondents no. 6 and 7 along with labh singh alleging himslf to be adopted son of shri modan singh and real son of pola singh, and pola singh himself filed a review application against the said allotment on the ground their land was adjoining to the aforesaid land which was allotted for the primary school and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 2001 (HC)

Ram Pyari and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-19-2001

Reported in : 2002(5)WLC194; 2002(5)WLN217

bhagwati prasad, j.1. in this writ petition, the petitioners has raised questions regarding the validity of initiation of proceedings under rajasthan imposition of ceiling on agricultural holdings act, 1973 (for short the act of 1973'), rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 chapter iii-b (old ceiling law) (for short 'the act of 1955') and the rajasthan imposition of ceiling on agricultural holdings rules, 1963 (for short 'the rules of 1963').2. according to the petitioners, proceedings against shri sanwar lal mansinghka and his wife smt. ram pyari one of the petitioners alongwith legal representatives of sanwarmal were initiated in ceiling case no. 19/1973. these proceedings were decided by the then authorised officer by the judgment dt. 2.12.1975. it was held by the authorised officer that sanwarmal was holding following lands :-______________________________________________________________s. name of village measurement_______________________________________no. bighas acres standard acres______________________________________________________________1. arajiya 61.12 33 9.522. kotiya 63.03 39 22.503. lambiya kalan 95.03 56 16.05__________________________________________total 219.18 128 48.17__________________________________________________________________3. according to the petitioners, in those proceedings, the tehsildar reported that there is separate possession of various persons on various parcels of land. after calculation, it was held that late shri sanwarmal was entitled to hold .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 13 2001 (HC)

Prakash Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-13-2001

Reported in : AIR2002Raj190; 2002(5)WLC90; 2002(4)WLN398

orderbhagwati prasad, j. 1. the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in the background that there was an agriculture hold-ing owned by one jethu singh s/o tej singh in khasara no. 759 measuring 12, 14 bighas situated at kheme ka kuan. jethu singh was holder of khatedari rights of this land. the said khatedar sold his rights in favour of respondent no. 3 by a registered sale deed. after sale, the aforesaid land came to be vested in respondent-samiti. a mutation was entered in the name of society through mutation no. 554. in the revenue record, in place of jethu singh, respondent no. 3 samiti was entered as khatedar. respondent no. 3 was constituted as housing cooperative society having its registered no.1188/q.2. the respondent no. 3 society made available plot no. 11 measuring 600 sq. yards (60 fts. x 90 fts) to one khushal singh, a member of the society vide annexure 1. the land was not converted and was allot-ted as agricultural land only. according to the petltitioner. it was mentioned in the allotment letter that conversion and development charges are to be borne by the member itself. the said khushal singh made an application for conversion of plot no. 11 measuring 600 sq. yards. the application presented by khushal singh was processed in accordance with law. the respondent trust has given its no objection for its conversion and the prescribed authority after fulfilment of all the requirements converted agricultural and into urban land by the order .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 26 2001 (HC)

State of Rajasthan Vs. Daya Ram

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-26-2001

Reported in : 2007(2)WLN712

v.g. palshikar, j.1. criminal appeal no. 319/1985 is filed by the state against the acquittal of daya ram whereas criminal appeal no. 132/1985 is filed by the accused chetan ram, both of them having been prosecuted under the prevention of corruption act, 1947. at the relevant time, daya ram was working as revenue inspector and chetan ram as patwari. it is alleged that they demanded and accepted bribe of rs. 500/-. the defence being that, it was paid towards rent of land.2. with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned public prosecutor for the state. i have scrutinised the record and reappreciated the evidence on record.3. the prosecution story as it emerges from reappreciation of the evidence is that; on 21.5.1978 a written report was submitted by p.w. 3 vedhraj and p.w. 6 mewa ram to the dy. s.p., anti corruption department, barmer. as per this report, the accused chetan ram, patwari and daya ram, revenue inspector demanded bribe of rs. 1000/-in connection with mutation. on refusing the bribe, both have rejected the mutation. tehsildar shiv vide his order dt. 17.5.1978, directed to mutate the land. the complainant mewa ram and ved raj served the order of tehsildar on chetan ram, thereupon chetan ram said them that revenue inspector daya ram is in banner, therefore, after getting approval from him, he will mutate the same. as per exhibit p/7, accused chetan ram took the complainants to barmer, where chetan ram and daya ram demanded rs. 500/- as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 2001 (HC)

Abdul Rahman Vs. Smt. Prasony Bai and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-04-2001

Reported in : 2002(2)WLC488; 2003(3)WLN560

m.r. calla, j.heard learned counsel for the appellant. it is not necessary for us to give history of the litigation in detail because the same has been narrated meticulously by the learned single judge in the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2001. on the basis of facts of the case, learned single judge has found that controversy between the parties stood decided finally with regard to cancellation of the allotment to abdul rehman i.e. the present appellant and also the mutation in favour of smt. prasony bai i.e. the respondent who had suffered the agony of this litigation for decade together. the litigation had started in the year 1979 and ended on 14.6.1999 after two rounds of litigation. the present appellant having failed in the previous litigations filed the present suit no. 17/99 with the prayer for declaration that smt. prasony bai is not the daughter of mangal singh and 'sanad' allotted to her in february, 1986 is illegal, that the plaintiff abdul rahman is in adverse possession of the land in question, the prayer has also been made in the suit for declaration that smt. prasony bai is not the daughter of mangal singh; that the plaintiff abdul rehman was in adverse possession even during the life time of mangal singh. on the basis of pleadings of the parties the following three issues were framed:(i) whether the dispute of the civil suit in question had already been decided and adjudicated upon by the courts and whether it is hit by the principles of res judicata .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 2001 (HC)

Madan Lal Vs. Ram Prasad (Deceased by L.Rs.)

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-12-2001

Reported in : RLW2003(3)Raj1891; 2002(3)WLN292; 2002(3)WLN292

prakash tatia, j. 1. this appeal is againstthe judgment and decree dated 31-5-1980 passed by the additional district judge. bhilwara in civil original suit no. 20/1977 (12/1973). 2. brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant madan lal filed a suit for possession of the disputed property described in para no. 4 of the plaint against his brother defendant ram prasad on the basis of title alleging that the plaintiff completed his studies in the year 1947 and thereafter, got the employment and he remained in employment at udaipur till 1952. thereafter, the plaintiff came at bhilwara and started his own business in the name of general machinery stores. bhilwara and also doing the business there in the names of few other firms. according to the plaintiff, the plaintiff purchased the disputed plot measuring 40' x 60' from sua lal and dal chand on 24-7-1958 by registered sale-deed. the plaintiff got the map of the house approved from the municipal board, bhilwara on 21-3-1960 and invested rs. 12,000/- for construction of the same. the plaintiff from time to time made additions and alterations in the house and also mortgaged the house with smt. anand kumari on 19-11-1960. after mortgaging the house, the plaintiff took on rent the house in dispute and there are several persons who are tenants of the plaintiff in the disputed house. the plaintiffs father expired on 25-12-1964. when plaintiffs father was sick then the defendant came to the plaintiff along with his family. .....

Tag this Judgment!

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