Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: rajasthan Page 10 of about 2,920 results (0.018 seconds)

Aug 09 1988 (HC)

Mahipal Singh and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1(1989)WLN(Rev)32

1. a broad brush fundamental constitutional backdrop will help delineate the pristinely forensic cotroversy in the matter of writ jurisdiction of this court one of the fundamental principles in regard to the issuing of writ of certiorari is that it can be availed of only to remove or adjudicate or the validity of judicial acts, which expression includes the exercise of quasi judicial functions by administrative bodies or other authorities or persons in contrast to purely ministerial act. the second eseential feature of this writ is that the control exercised through it is not appellate but supervisory. in granting writ of certiorari, the superior, court does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. it merely demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palyably erroneous but does not substitute its own views or those of the inferior tribunal.2. mere formal or technical error, even though of law, will not how ever be sufficient to attract extraordinary jurisdiction under articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of india. where the errors cannot be said to be errors of law apparent on the face of the record, but they are merely errors in appreciation of documentary evidence or affidavits, errors in drawing inferences or omission to draw inference, or in other words, errors which a court sitting as a court sitting as a court of appeal only could have examined, there is no case for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 1988 (HC)

Kajod Vs. Board of Revenue

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1(1989)WLN(Rev)368

1. the petition is directed against the order (annexure-m) dated 14-12-1976 passed by the board of revenue. the impugned order is a common order in three proceedings which arose substantially in the same set of facts. the petitioner kajod was in unauthorised occupation of khasra no. 938 in village kachroli measuring 10 bighas 2 biswas, which was recorded as 'gair mumkin pokhar' (talai). proceedings under section 91 of the land revenue act were initiated by the tehsildar for his eviction. more ever, the petitioner approached the sdo, who passed an order altering the soil classification from 'gair mumkin' to 'barani'. as a result of this change, the land was allotted to the petitioner. members of the public, being aggrieved by this act of conversion of a land meant for public, preferred an appeal, which was allowed in the mean time, mutation having been made in favour of the petitioner kajod, that too was challenged it is these proceedings which came to be finally decided by the impugned order (annexure-m) dated 14-12-1976 passed by the board of revenue.2. learned counsel for the petitioner in fairness pointed out the decision of this court in jainarain v. the board of revenue in which it is already held that conversion of the land recorded in the record of rights as 'gair mumkin talai' into 'barani' and its allotment thereafter by, the sdo is contrary to law. the situation in the present case being similar, it must be held that conversion of the land in this manner and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 1988 (HC)

Prabhu Lal Vs. Board of Revenue

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2(1988)WLN(Rev)150

m.b. sharma, j.1. this writ petition is arising out of the mutation proceeding in repect of the agricultural land.2. one shiv nandan singh was admittedly a recorded khateder of the land bearing khasra no. 116. measuring 16 bighas 13 biswas situated in balwan, tehsil pipalda, district kota, rajasthan. he is said to have sold the aforesaid agricultural land to hazarilal, who is now represented by his legal representatives (respondents nos. 1 to 4) and to one ram kishan who had an equal share, for the consideration of rs. 500/- under an unregistered sale-deed., the aforesaid half share of ram kishan is also said to have been sold to the aforesaid hazarilal on 11th may, 1962, again under un-registered sale deed though for more than rs. 100/-. the board of revenue, under its judgment september 23, 1987, has said that one ram kishan purchased 8 bighas 7 biswas of land by a registered sale deed on october 6, 1969, from shiv nandan singh, who was a recorded khatedar and on basis of that sale-deed ram kishan got the mutation of 8 bighas, 7 biswas land attested in his favour on february 3, 1970, by the gram panchayat balwan.the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid sale in favour of ram kishan by shiv nandan singh was not of no. 116, but there appears to be no dispute that against the attestation of the mutation in favour of the above named ram kishan, an appeal was filed by the petitioners before the learned additional collector, who accepted the appeal and set .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 1988 (HC)

Bhanwru and ors. Vs. Manak Chand and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1988WLN(UC)477

j.r. chopra, j.1. this petition under section 482 cr.pc has been filed against the revisional order of the learned sessions judge, pali dated 19-2-1982 whereby he has set aside the order of the learned sub-divisional magistrate, jetaran dated 16-10-1979, by which the learned magistrate has dropped the proceedings initiated under section 145 cr.pc in exercise of his powers under section 145(5) cr.pc and remanded the case back to him.2. the facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision petition briefly stated are that non-petitioner manak chand purchased land bearing khasra no. 897 in village lambia measuring 75 and 1/2 bighas from the petitioners on the basis of the sale deed. the mutation was recorded in favour of non-petitioner manakchand. this purchase was made in s.y. 2013. it is alleged that manakchand bequeathed 25 bighas of land each in favour of non-petitioners dharmchand and prakashchand and the land was mutated in their favour. the remaining 25 and 1/2 bighas of land remained with him. it is alleged that on 29-5-1979, manakchand went to cultivate this field on behalf of himself, and his grand sons dharmchand and prakashchand non-petitioner dharm chand at the relevant time was living outside and non-petitioner prakash chand was minor and so, manakchand was looking after this field. it is alleged that on that day the petitioners did not allow him to cultivate the field and threatened to kill him. on this, he reported the matter to the police on 30-5- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 28 1988 (HC)

Ram Pratap Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2(1989)WLN(Rev)27a

farooq hasan, j.1. the facts, simple enough as they are, have been complicated by the voluminous record built up by the petitioners. shorn of all unnecessary detail, the relevant facts are these. the petitioners, (ram pratap, kewal chand, padam kumar and mabaveer prasad), claimed themselves as khatedar tenants of the land situated in villages gamach (308 bighas 9 biswas) and bhawanipura (46 bighas 10 biswas) on the ground that they had succeeded over the land inherited by dhanna and laxmi narain on the death of one, shri onkar. according to the petitioners, on the death of dhanna lal, the parties partitioned co-parcenary joint family property and the mutation was attested before 1-4-1966 by giving effect also co the jamabandi of s.ys 2020 to 2023. in ceiling proceedings initiated against the petitioners for their lands, the orders were passed by the respondents nos. 2 to 4 which are being challenged through this writ petition praying therein for setting aside the orders dated 17-11-1976 (ann-d) of the board of revenue (respondent no. 2); dated 25 8-1977 (ann-e) along with ann. b dated 9th june, 1975 of the revenue appellate authority (respondent no. 3), and dated 29-1-1972 (ann. a) of the assistant collector (ceiling) bundi (respondent no. 4).2. the assistant collector (respondent no. 4) while deciding the ceiling proceedings admitted the fact of partition but, declared 96 bighas 14 biswas of land as surplus one with the petition-against which the petitioners filed appeal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 28 1988 (HC)

Ram Pratap and 3 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and 50 ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1(1989)WLN(Rev)114

farooq hasan, j.1. the facts, simple enough as they are, have been complicated by the voluminous record built up by the petitioners. shorn of all unnecessary detail, the relevant facts are these. the petitioners, (ram pratap, kewal chand, padam kumar and mahaveer prasad), claimed themselves as khatedar tenants of the land situated in villages gamach (308 bighas 9 biswas) and bhawanipura (46 bigbas 10 biswas) on the ground that they had succeeded over the land inherited by dhanna and laxmi narain on the death of one, shri onkar. according to the petitioners, on the death of dhannalal, the parties partitioned co-parcenary joint family property and the mutation was attested before 1-4-1966 by giving effect also to the jamabandi of s.ys. 2020 to 2023. in ceiling proceedings initiated against the petitioners for their lands, the order were passed by the respondents nos. 2 to 4 which are being challenged through this writ petition praying therein for setting aside the orders dated 17-11-1976 (aux. d) of the board of revenue (respondent no. 2); dated 25-8-1977 (anx. e) along with (anx. b) dated 9-6-1975 of the revenue appellate authority (respondent no. 3), and dated 29-1-1972 (anx, a) of the assistant collector (ceiling) bundi (respondent no. 4).2. the asstt. collector (respondent no. 4) while deciding the ceiling proceedings admitted the fact of partition but, declared 96 bighas 14 biswas of land as surplus one with the petitioners-against which the petitioners filed appeal which .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 1989 (HC)

Ram Gopal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1991Raj67; 1992(2)WLC639; 1(1989)WLN(Rev)252

orderi.s. israni, j. 1. we have heard mr. mehriah, learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the judgment dated october, 19, 1967 of the board of revenue for rajasthan, ajmer. the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a twofold contention. the first is that the board of revenue did not go into the question as to whether the agricultural lands for which ceiling proceedings were initiated were ancestral property or not and without going into this question dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and his two sons viz. prem chand and ram swaroop. the second contention is that once the ceiling case is decided under chapter iii-b of rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 (for short 'the old ceiling-law') against the assessee and has also been decided under the provisions of rajasthan (imposition of ceiling on agricultural holdings) act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the new ceiling law') they cannot be reopened under subsection (2) of section 15 of the new ceiling law.2. we shall presently show that none of the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel has force, but before we will state the facts in brief.3. proceedings under old ceiling law and the rajasthan tenancy (fixation of ceiling on lands) government rules 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules'), were initiated by the sub-divisional officer, kota against the petitioner for the acquisition of the surplus lands possessed by him. those ceiling proceedings were dropped under order dated 29-4-75 in ceiling .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1989 (HC)

Jag Mal Vs. Devi Lal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1989(2)WLN469

navin chandra sharma, j.1. this is an appeal by plaintiff jagmal against the appellate decree of the civil judge, ganganagar dated april 11, 1977 dismissing his appeal against the decree of munsif suratgarh passed in civil suit no. 1 of 1970 on april 20, 1972 where by his suit for permanent injunction was dismissed2 facts in brief are that in his above suit he alleged that he was marusidar of agricultural lands located in chak no. 24 jrk sq. no. 246 stone nos. 23 to 27 measuring 10 bighas. his said agricultural fields were irrigated through sanctioned water course passing through stone nos. 23 to 26 for last 18 years. smt. rama wife of. ramkaran and smt. sajna wife of devi lal had purchased land comprised in square nos. 23/247 and 24/247 in an auction conducted by cololonisation department. it was alleged that ramkaran, who was impleaded as defendant in the suit, made an application to executive engineer, pilibanga division, hanumangarh that the existing water course passing through sq. nos. 24/247, 25/247 and 26/247 may be altered and may be passed through the agricultural lands of the plaintiff. the executive engineer sent his proposals to the collector ganganagar in this regard and the same were accepted by the collector on october 23, 1969. the plaintiff challenged the recommendations of the executive engineer hanumangarh and the order of the collector ganganagar dated october 23, 1969 on various grounds enumerated in para 5 of the plaint. the plaintiff prayed that a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 1989 (HC)

Chandra Bhan Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1989(2)WLN628

farooq hasan, j.1. this is an appeal directed against the judgment dated 11-2-1981 passed by shri mohammed yamin, special judge, for a.c.d. cases jaipur, whereby the accused appellant has been found guilty for the offence under section 161 ipc and section 5(1)(d) r/w section 5(2), prevention of corruption act and he has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprison' ment and a fine of rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment on each count.2. brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that in the year 1975 complainant sita ram had purchased land of khasra no.456 of his village tunga and the kharif and ravi crop of this khasra number was cut and taken away by roop narain and vijay narain malies and a theft case came to be registered against them on an fir no. 34/76. thana bassi lodged by sita ram which was pending investigation. in that criminal case sitaram had to produce jamabandi and khasra girdawari in order to show his possession. sitaram, as such made an application to accused patwari on 3-12-76 and thereafter he kept meeting the accused and demanding the certified copies. on 10-1-77 the accused demanded rs. 25 as bribe for giving certified copies and the complainant agreed to pay and asked the accused to prepare copies and told him that he would give the money the next day.3. the case of prosecution further is that the complainant came to jaipur and submitted a report ex p.2 in acd, the next day i.e. on 11-1-77 to s.p. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 1989 (HC)

Kailash Chand Kaushik Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1989(2)WLN397

v.s. dave, j.1. this is an appeal filed by the accused-appellant against the judgment of special judge, acd cases, jaipur dated 27-1-1981 by which he convicted the accused-appellant of offence under sections 161 ipc and sec 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption act (here in after referred to as 'the act') and sentenced for each of the offence to one year's ri and a fine of rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three month's ri.2. the learned judge, how ever, ordered that the substantive sentences pasted under both the offences shall run concurrently.3. accused appellant kailash chand on 10-10-1976 was a patwari of halka lalpura and in his jurisdiction wag a field belonging to complainant decoy, rokar chand in village chahaka bas. rokar chand filed a written application ex p1, before dy. s.p. anti corruption department, alwar on 11-10-1976 where in it was alleged by him that he is resident of pratapgarh tehsil thanagaji having his agricultural land in chahaka bas in patwar circle lalpura. he wanted to get entry of this land in his name because patwari halka lalpura has shown the cultivation of his sister kamla on his stand while in fact on the spot he was in cultivatory possession and mutation had also been done in her name and in name of his brother. he, therefore, wanted to file a suit for correction of entry in the court of sdo, rajgarh for which he wanted copy of jamabandi of sumvat years 2028 to 2032 and for taking copy of .....

Tag this Judgment!


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