Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 134 results (0.013 seconds)

Nov 11 2002 (HC)

Indian Telephone Industry Ltd. Vs. Madan Lal

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-11-2002

Reported in : [2003]43SCL644(Raj); 2003(2)WLC374; 2003(1)WLN142

..... given them to the parties for their observation and after receivingobservations of the parties, the court may formulate the terms of possible settlement and refer the same for arbitration, conciliation, mediation or judicial settlement including settlement through lok adalat.7. generally civil matters are to be decided by the civil court. all suits are triable by civil court unless their cognizance .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 2002 (HC)

Ram Prasad and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-31-2002

Reported in : II(2003)DMC154; RLW2003(1)Raj681; 2002(4)WLC774

..... , the accused had dragged his daughter out of their house on 2-3 occasions. in cross examination the witness stated that pw.11 shanker, his brother-in-law was the mediator in arranging marriage. he admitted that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage. according to him, after the marriage, she started visiting his place and after .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 01 2002 (HC)

Ameer Mohammed Vs. Barkat Ali

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-01-2002

Reported in : RLW2003(4)Raj2354; 2002(4)WLC425; 2002(5)WLN604

..... the surrounding circumstances including the fact that if oral agreement was entered into between the parties then whether it was in presence of any person and if there was any mediator who was he and what negotiations took place and if the agreement was acted upon then all the material particulars: how it was acted upon which includes the writing of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 2002 (HC)

Naresh JaIn and ors. Vs. Rama and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-31-2002

Reported in : AIR2003Raj119

orderh.r. panwar, j. 1. these six appeals raise common questions of law and facts, parties to which are common and, therefore, for convenience, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. for convenience, facts of s.b. civil misc. appeals no. 411/2001 and 898/2001 arc taken as leading case. 2. three separate suits for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction were filed by plain tiff-appellants namely rama v. bhawani singh and others. civil original suit no. 8/2001; rama and ors. v. bhawani singh and ors., civil original suit no. 9/2001; and ganga and ors. v. bhawani singh and ors. civil original suit no. 10/2001. for convenience appellants rama and ors. and ganga and ors. shall be referred hereinafter as 'the palintiffs' and bhawani singh and others shall be referred as 'the defendants'. along with the suits, plaintiffs filed three separate applications under order 39, rules 1 and 2 read with 151, cr.p.c. against the defendants seeking temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. 3. facts of the case as set up by the plaintiffs are that agricultural lands descriptionwhereof is given in the plaint, was agreed to be sold to the plaintiffs by defendant smt. bhawani singh son of late shri onkar singh by three separate unregistered documents agreement to sale dated 29-10-1990. defendants filed reply to the application, inter alia, stating therein that original the land in dispute was owned by onkar singh son of nathu singh .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 2002 (HC)

Motilal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-31-2002

Reported in : 2003(1)WLN197

arun madan, j.1. the fact concisely stated are that in ceiling proceedings initiated against motilal (petitioner herein) in respect of his agricultural land situated in village raithal, tehsil mangrol district kota, (now in district baran), 30 bighas & 18 biswas of his land was declared surplus vide order dt. 22.1.1979, thereby motilal submitted option to surrender 30 bighas & 18 biswas of land out of khasra no. 9 of his village raithal, to which mathuralal (respondent no. 5, herein) raised objection stating that he had purchased the land in dispute in the year 1958 and so it was an encumbered land. but, the assistant collector baran, after having considered respondent no. 5's objections and heard the petitioner rejected the objections vide his order dt. 28.2.1981 (ann.a), and directed the tehsildar mangrol to take possession of the land in dispute. against order (ann.a) rejecting objections, the respondent no. 5 preferred an appeal but it was dismissed by the additional collector (ceiling) kota vide order dt. 27.12.1982 (ann.b), resulting in filing second appeal by the respondent no. 5 before the revenue board, which by its order dt. 25.8.1988 (ann.c) accepted the second appeal while setting aside orders (ann. a & b) of the authorised officer and the appellate authority (ceiling) and accordingly the asstt. collector (authorised officer) was directed to acquire unencumbered land in lieu of the land in dispute which stood transferred in favour of mathuralal.2. however, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 2002 (HC)

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

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-06-2002

Reported in : 2002(3)WLC17; 2002(3)WLN392

prakash tatia, j.1. an issue was raised before the learned single judge in this case that whether in view of the provisions of section 15(2) of the rajasthan imposition of ceiling on agricultural holdings act, 1973 (for short 'the act of 1973'), the collector has any jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for making a reference to the board of revenue in respect of an order passed on 30.6.1970 for determining the ceiling area of the lands that could be held by the petitioners under chapter-iii-b of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 (for short 'the act of 1955').2. the learned single judge, after hearing arguments, considered the two judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, namely, om prakash and others v. state of rajasthan 1999 (1) rlr 333 and hari singh v. state of rajasthan and ors. 1999 (2) rlr 626, which support the contentions of the petitioners but the learned single judge felt himself unable to agree with the view taken in the above two judgments. therefore, the learned single judge, directed to place the matter before hon'ble the chief justice to resolve the issue. thereafter, the matter came up for hearing before us.3. the brief facts which are necessary for deciding the point in controversy are that chapter-iii-b of the act of 1955 was introduced by section 3 of the rajasthan tenancy (amendment) act, 1960, published in rajasthan gazette extraordinary part iv-a dated 21.3.1960 vide notification no. f.6(2) rev. b/70(i) and this chapter came into .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 2002 (HC)

Mahesh Kanwar and anr. Vs. State and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-18-2002

Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj610; 2003(1)WLC560

balia, j. 1. this special appeal raises a question about the validity of option given by the predecessor of appellants in surrendering the surplus land of his holdings as determined in ceiling proceedings.2. the ceiling proceedings were initiated in the case of ugam singh, whose sons are the present appellants, under chapter iii-b of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955. ugam singh, an ex- jagirdar, had certain lands in villages chohtan, kaparau, itada and laisar in distt. barmer. said ugam singh had claimed certain lands to be not his holdings on the basis of transfers made by him. these proceedings relate to one of such lands which according to him did not belong to him and was held by the respondents. the lands in respect of which the transactions for transfer claimed by said ugam singh, were all transfers made in favour of (1) jaswanta ram by way of a registered sale deed. this transfer related to 8 bighas 19 biswas of land of khasra no. 550/3 and 12 bighas 10 biswas of khasra no. 551/3 at village chohtan. (ii) another land which was claimed by ugam singh, not to be his own but transferred by him under a written document, was to multanmal s/o. parasram of choutan. this related to 271 bighas of land of khasra no. 675 situated in village hada, which is the subject matter of this appeal, (iii) lastly, the third transfer alleged to be made by ugam singh was of 322 bighas of land in khasra no. 110/5 in village jaisar by way of a gift deed in favour of peerchand s/o bheekchand.3. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 14 2002 (HC)

Shankarlal and ors. Vs. Revenue Board of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-14-2002

Reported in : 2002(5)WLN421

sunil kumar garg, j.1. this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india has been filed by the petitioners, who are ten in number and the petitioners no. 1/1 and 1/2 are the lrs. of original petitioner no. 1 shankarlal, against the respondents on 16.1.1987 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 5.12.1986 (ex. 3) passed by the board of revenue. ajmer in the review petition be quashed and all other orders passed by the revenue authorities prior to that order ex. 3 be also quashed.2. it arises in the following circumstances :one shambhu singh (hereinafter referred to as deceased) had granted pattas of certain agricultural lands on the dates mentioned in schedule a, which is a part of this writ petition, to the petitioners as well as forefathers of the petitioners, who had subsequently executed sale deeds in favour of the petitioners in respect of various khasras of land as mentioned in schedule-a and the land in dispute was mutated in favour of the petitioners on the date mentioned in schedule-a much before 1.4.1966.during the ceiling proceedings, which were initated against the deceased shambhu singh, the sub-divisional officer, bhilwara passed an order on 31.7.1971 (ex. 1) by which he found 116 standard acres of land, out of 147 standard acres of land, in excess of the ceiling limit to be acquired from the deceased shambhu singh and he further came to the conclusion that the said excess lahd should vest in the state. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 2002 (HC)

Jangir Singh (Through His Legal Representatives) Vs. Board of Revenue ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-02-2002

Reported in : 2003(1)WLC551; 2003(2)WLN186

rajesh balia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the only contesting respondent, who has put in appearance on caveat.2. a short issue arises for consideration in this case. the facts are not in dispute.3. the land in question consists of 66 bighas of land belonging to lehan singh, who was recorded as khatedar of this land. he died somewhere in 1949, at that time hindu succession act had not come into force. at the time of his death, the said lehan singh was survived by his son hari singh. hari singh had one son jangir singh. at the time when lehan singh died the property devolved on hari singh as successor of lehan singh. as hari singh had inherited the property from his father, the immediate ancestor, before the commencement of hindu succession act, 1956, the property in his hands was ancesstral property, which was subject to unobstructed heritage and his son jangir singh got interest in the land by birth and was a co-parcener with his father.4. the said 66 bighas of land were mutated in the name of hari singh alone after demise of said lehan singh. on 30.9.1959 by registered gift deed 21 bighas of land out of the said 66 bighas of land were given to jangir singh. thereafter, hari singh died in 1968. during the mutation proceedings on his demise, his two daughters namely jangir kaur and jal kaur raised objection putting forward their claims to inheritance to the share of hari singh in the property inherited by lehan singh.5. jangir .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 23 2002 (HC)

Parmanand Setia Vs. Somlal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-23-2002

Reported in : AIR2003Raj54; 2003(2)WLC84; 2003(2)WLN84

b. prasad, j.1. the present appeal has been filed against the order of addl. district judge no. 2, sri ganganagar in civil original suit no. 13/1985 by which learned judge rejected the application under order 23, rule 3, cpc. 2. the suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming that defendant no. 1 is tenant. the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied by respondent no. 1 and he claimed that he is living as owner in the property. the respondent no. 1 filed an application on 27-11-1984 under order 23. rule 3, cpc that parties have compromised and in terms of this compromise, an agricultural land situated at abohar was the bone of contention. it has been stated that defendant will not interfere into the land and the plaintiff has accepted that defendant no. 1 is occupying house no. 33a, block public park as a owner in terms of mutual partnership as agreed by the parties. it was prayed in the application that suit should be decided in terms of the agreement. 3. the plaintiff opposed the application of defendant no. 1 and has denied the compromise. it was contended on behalf of plaintiff that document relied upon by the document does not come within the definition of family arrangement. 4. issues were settled and out of these issues, issue no. 3 was decided as a preliminary issue. after hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that every document which has in itself a tendency to create and extinguish the right of the parties, the same have to be registered .....

Tag this Judgment!


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