Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: rajasthan Year: 2007 Page 1 of about 92 results (0.028 seconds)

Jul 09 2007 (HC)

Ganraj and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-09-2007

Reported in : 2008CriLJ253; RLW2007(4)Raj3269

..... ganraj under section 302 ipc is not sustainable. in the alternative, it is argued by the counsel that the incident took place all of a sudden, there was no pre-mediation and the injury sustained by deceased kishan lal was not of such a grave nature, which is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. it was contended that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 2007 (HC)

Raghuveer @ Pappu and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-28-2007

Reported in : RLW2007(3)Raj2649

..... son raghuveer was married with bimla. the engagement of his son with bimla took place about seven years ago. he wanted to go dubai, therefore, he called bhagat ram, the mediator of this proposal, and asked him to have a talk with heera lal that either he should marry his daughter with raghuveer this time, otherwise he will not be available .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 2007 (HC)

Jawahar Singh and anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-06-2007

Reported in : RLW2007(3)Raj1890

..... public to act as independent witnesses. still the officer managed to get two witnesses, one of whom has been examined. pw.5 is a reserve policeman to act as a mediator/panch the instant case 13 kg opium got recovered from the car wherein the appellants were found sitting, therefore it does not appear a case of planting. i .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 2007 (HC)

Lachhi Ram and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-13-2007

Reported in : 2007(2)WLN222

mohammad rafiq, j.1. the petitioner lachchi ram, who is now being represented by his legal representatives, has filed this writ petition challenging the judgment of the board of revenue dt. 05.06.1997 whereby the revision petition under section 84 of the rajasthan land revenue act, 1956 (in short 'the act') filed by him against the order dt. 20.03.1991 passed by the additional divisional commissioner was dismissed thereby upholding order of the additional collector tonk dt. 31.03.1987 setting aside mutation in favour of the petitioner. he has further challenged the order dt. 29.02.1997 by which his petition seeking review of the aforesaid judgment dt. 05.07.1997 was dismissed by the learned board of revenue.2. dispute pertains to a piece of land bearing khasra no. 1992 measuring 7 bighas and 13 biswas situated in village chauru in tehsil uniyara of district tonk. this land was entered in the name of petitioner lachchi ram on the basis of his long possession since svt. 2015 (equivalent to the year 1957-58). mutation of the land was accordingly made in his name. the respondent 224 lachhi ram and ors. v. board of revenue and anr. 2007 (2) wln modya and badri challenged the said mutation no. 35 before the learned additional collector, tonk who by his order dt. 31.03.1987 held that since the petitioner lachchi ram was a person belonging to dhangar community, which is a scheduled caste, the land in dispute which was entered in his favour by gram panchayat on the basis of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 2007 (HC)

Ram Dayal and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-15-2007

Reported in : 2007(3)WLN589

mohammad rafiq, j.1. the petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the judgments of the board of revenue dt. 24.11.1997 and that of the revenue appellate authority dt. 10.11.1994 and have prayed for upholding the judgment of the assistant collector, nandwai dt. 07.10.1989 whereby their revenue suit was decreed.2. factual matrix of the case is that the predecessor in title of the petitioner namely medue filed suit for declaration for permanent injunction with regard to 2 bighas and 15 bishwas of land of khasra no. 196/3 situated in revenue village chetari, tehsil nadbai, district bharatpur. the case set up by the plaintiff before the court of assistant collector was that he was in possession of the land and was recorded khatedar tenant. during the last settlement proceedings, his name was recorded in khasra girdawari of samvat 2029 to 2032. but his name was deleted therefrom for subsequent period which adversely affected their interest. the tehsildar, nadbai was bent upon ejecting the plaintiff and has in fact initiated proceedings against him under section 91 of the land revenue act, 1956 (for short 'the act'). prayer was made for decree of declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. the revenue suit was proceeded ex-parte against the defendants by order of the assistant collector, nadbai dt. 19.09.1986 and in these circumstances, it was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 07.10.1989 declaring him to be khatedar tenant of the land. aggrieved thereby, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 2007 (HC)

Shivji Lal and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-10-2007

Reported in : 2007(3)WLN575

mohammad rafiq, j.1. challenge in this case is the judgment dt. 06.11.1996 passed by the learned board of revenue on a reference of additional collector, tonk under section 82 of the rajasthan land revenue act, 1956 and the order dt. 23.12.1997 by which the board rejected review petition. the petitioners are resident of village kiraval, tehsil malpura, district tonk. they have asserted that the agricultural land comprising khasras nos. 1182/5.4, 1393/1.10, 1396/4.17, 1401/1.0, 1410/31.8, 1303/5.5 and 1385/7.8 measuring total area 23 bighas and 3 bishwa situated in village kiraval tehsil malpura, has been in their cultivatory possession since the time of their ancestors. settlement of village kiraval was made in samvat 2008 (year 1951). settlement office recorded such land as 'talabi' in the revenue record. copy of the khasra settlement has been placed on record. it is submitted that the lands of khasras no. 1303, 1385, 1392, 1397, 1401 and 1410 are the lands of the then state of jaipur and the cultivators used to pay rent to the state authorities. during settlement of the samvat 2010, these lands were entered as sivay chak lagani, therefore, the names of cultivators were not shown in the record. section 16 bars khatedari rights in the land for casual or occasional cultivation in the bed of river or tank. according to the petitioners, however, the land in their cultivation was irrigated land and source of irrigation was tank and not the land used for casual or occasional .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 03 2007 (HC)

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

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-03-2007

Reported in : 2008(1)WLN249

prakash tatia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioners.2. the petitioners have challenged the mutation order dt. 17.02.1964 by preferring appeal under section 75 of the rajasthan land revenue act. the appeal was allowed vide order dt. 04.06.2004. the respondent kishana rampreferred revision petition before the board of revenue, which was allowed by the board of revenue vide order dt. 27.07.2007 on the ground that since there is regular suit pending between the parties, therefore, the first appellate court should not have set aside the mutation order passed long ago.3. learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the mutation entries were absolutely fabricated as it is apparent from the revenue record itself. it is submitted that in any case, the respondent could not have got the entries in his name as he is not successor of lalaram. it is submitted that even if the board of revenue was of the view that no entry should have been changed during the pendency of the regular suit then the entry in the name of lalaram should have been restored in place of setting aside of the appellate order by which the entry in the name of kishna ram was set aside.4. i considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the facts of the case.5. it is settled law that mere mutation order and entry made on the basis of such order itself neither create or extinguish any right, title or interest of any person. so far as rights of the party with regard .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 2007 (HC)

Gavra Devi (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-11-2007

Reported in : 2008(1)WLN274

govind mathur, j.1. by this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the order dt. 18.10.2005 passed by the board of revenue, rajasthan, ajmer accepting a revision petition preferred by respondent shri ghanshyam giving challenge to validity, propriety and correctness of the order passed by the sub divisional officer (north), bikaner in revenue appeal no. 37/2000 as affirmed by the additional divisional commissioner, bikaner by order dt.19.09.2001.2. in brief, facts of the case are that the tehsildar made mutation in favour of respondent shri ghanshyam s/o shri nathmal on basis of a will said to be executed by his father shri nathmal. the present petitioners being aggrieved by the same, preferred an appeal before the sub divisional officer (north), bikaner and that came to be accepted by the order dt. 16.05.2001with a finding that the tehsildar (revenue), bikaner erred while enteringmutation in favour of respondent shri ghanshyam without hearing other legal representatives of shri nathmal. the sub divisional magistrate, accordingly, remanded the matter to tehsildar (revenue), bikaner to decide the issue afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the legal representatives of shri nathmal. an appeal preferred by the respondent shri ghanshyam before the additional divisional commissioner, bikanerunder section 76 of the land revenue act, 1986 also stood rejected by the order dt. 19.09.2001, however, the board of revenue accepted the revision petition preferred .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2007 (HC)

Gopal Ram and ors. Vs. Shanker Lal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-21-2007

Reported in : 2008(1)WLN516

prakash tatia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. this writ petition has been preferred against the judgment of the board of revenue dt. 10.12.1997 by which the board of revenue has allowed the appeal preferred by respondent shanker lal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dt. 26.12.1990.3. brief facts of the case which came on the record are that there were three co-sharers namely, ghadsi ram, mansha ram and chunni lal in the agriculture land of khasra no. 202 measuring 56 bighas 19 biswas situated in village rohi of circle jaitpura of tehsil suratgarh. ghadsi ram sold his share in the property, which is 1/3rd, to defendant no. 2-raji ram s/o chunni lal. plaintiff mansha ram impleaded his co-sharer ghadsi ram as party alongwith raji ram as defendant no. 2 and also impleaded legal heirs of chunni lal as defendants nos. 3 to 6.4. in the plaint, the plaintiff alleged that mansha ram had 1/3rd share, raji ram got 1/3rd share and the rest of the land is in the share of legal heirs of chunni lal. it is stated that because of the dispute between the plaintiff and defendants, the plaintiff wants to get his share determined and separated by meets and bounds. the suit was filed on 20.08.1987, the suit was decreed on the basis of consent written statement vide judgment and decree dt. 26.12.1990.said judgment and decree dt. 26.12.1990 was challenged by respondent shanker lal by preferring appeal before the revenue appellate authority, bikaner, camp .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 24 2007 (HC)

Nathuram and ors. Vs. Barsingharam and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-24-2007

Reported in : 2007(3)WLN483

gopal krishan vyas, j.1. by way of filing present writ petition, petitioners are challenging the impugned order dt. 24.05.2001 (annexure-4) passed by board of revenue and prayed for confirming the judgment dt. 26.08.1993 passed by the additional commissioner, jodhpur in an appeal filed by the petitioners.2. according to the facts narrated in the writ petition, one kishorilal paliwal was the khatedar of the land situated in khasra no. 1460 measuring 48 bighas 11 biswas in village mandla, tehsil phalodi, district jodhpur. the petitioners are sons of late kishorilal paliwal and after his death, being his successors they became owner of the aforesaid land.3. as per contention of the petitioners, the mutation was made in favour of respondents nos.1 and 2 in the year 1986, but it was not in the knowledge of petitioners. the said mutation was made on the basis of sale deed, which was alleged to be made by late kishori lal paliwal, therefore, the said mutation was completely made in the back of petitioners, therefore, against the said order of mutation, the present petitioners preferred an appeal in the court of sub-divisional officer, phalodi. the said appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed after hearing both the parties vide judgment dt. 06.05.1989 on the ground that after a delay of 20 years, no appeal challenging the mutation, which was affected on 30.06.1966 can be preferred.4. against the said judgment dt. 06.05.1989 passed by sub-divisional officer, phalodi-petitioners .....

Tag this Judgment!

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