Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: rajasthan Year: 1986 Page 1 of about 55 results (0.009 seconds)

Feb 25 1986 (HC)

Paras Chand JaIn Vs. University of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-25-1986

Reported in : 1986(1)WLN631

mahendra bhushan sharma, j.1. some facts are not in dispute any longer and they are these. the petitioner paras chand jain passed his intermediate examination in the year 1979 from madhya pradesh (board of secondary education madhya pradesh bhopal) vide annexure 1. he was admitted in iind year course of tdc commerce and appeared in iind year examination 1980 in the university of rajasthan. a candidate who had passed his intermediate examination was eligible for admission to iind year tdc course. as per the rajasthan university rules then in force, the petitioner was also to pass a paper of general english in iind year tdc. he could not get the requisite passing marks in that paper as well as abst i & ii and therefore he was declared eligible for supplementary examination in those papers in 1981. he appeared in final year of tdc examination along with back-log papers of iind year namely, general english and abst i & ii. he cleared the papers of final year commerce examinations but was again declared eligible for supplementary examination in abst i & ii and general english. he applied for revaluation of the marks obtained by him in the final year examination of 1981, but he was declared fail in the final year commerce. he again appeared in the final year commerce tdc special examination, 1982 at government college centre, kota. he also appeared in the back log papers as aforesaid. he was declared passed in abst papers i and ii but failed in general english paper but no marks .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 1986 (HC)

Bal Singh and 10 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-07-1986

Reported in : 1986(2)WLN391

kishan mal lodha, j.1. these 11 appeals before us arise out of a common order dated september 22, 1980, passed by the learned single judge dismissing 37 identical writ petitions.2. as common questions are involved in these appeals, they were heard together and we consider it convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.3. it will be convenient to notice the facts in d.b. civil special appeal no. 204 of 1981 bal singh v. state of rajasthan and ors. which has arisen out of s.b. civil writ petition no. 278 of 1976 bal singh v. state.4. the petitioner-appellant was employee of the former ruler of erestwhile state of jodhpur. by a document anx. 1 dated 5-1-1964 the comptroller of house-hold of the former ruler of jodhpur state shri gaj singh allowed him to cultivate 50 bighas of land in khasra no. 4292 situale in moja, bilara which belonged to the ex-ruler of jodhpur, we may reproduce anx. 1 and it is as under:his highness house hold, jodhpurumaid bhawan palace, jodhpur,dated 5th january, 1964shri bal singh s/o bhom singh rajput at present doedhidhar in h.h. house-hold department has been admitted as tenant of the agricultural land of h.h. the maharaja sahib bahadur shri gaj singhji in moja bilara, tehsil bilara, district jodhpur and allowed to cultivate 50 bighas land in khasra no. 4292.sd/- manoharsinghcomptroller of house hold jodhpur.5. by this document annx. 1 the petitioner was allowed to cultivate 50 bighas agricultural land as according to him he was admitted as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 1986 (HC)

Amb Singh and anr. Vs. Sub-divisional Officer and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-08-1986

Reported in : 1986(1)WLN418

milap chand jain, j.1. this writ petition is directed against the order of the board of revenue dated october 27, 1978 (anx. 4) whereby the board of revenue allowed the revision and set aside the order of the revenue appellate authority dated october 20, 1975 (anx. 2) and restored the order of the learned sdo dated may 31, 1975 (anx. 1). the sub-divisional officer, dhinmal decided the petitioners ceiling ease by his order anx. 1. he recorded that the portion is recognisable and acceptable but as the petitioners being the co-tenants are entitled to equal shares. on that basis the sub-divisional officer determined the ceiling area of the petitioners. each of the petitioners was entitled to 37.12 standard acres considering the number of members of the family of jaisingh as 3, he found that no part of share of his land is resumable whereas the number of the family members of the petitioner amb singh was less than five so he found that 7.12 standard acres land is resumable. consequently he ordered that 51 bighas 1 biswa land as specified in his order shall vest in the state government in accordance with the option. the revenue appellate authority on separate appeals preferred by the petitioners in view of the partition effected between the petitioners found that no land of petitioner jaisingh is liable to be resumed as the land in his possession, is not in excess of the ceiling area whereas 23 bighas 1 biswas land of petitioner ambsingh is liable to resumed of the kharas. nos. 108 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 14 1986 (HC)

Bhanu and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-14-1986

Reported in : 1986(1)WLN563

jas raj chopra, j.1. these two appeals; one by the state and the other by the accused-persons arise out of the same judgment rendered by the learned sessions judge, sriganganagar on may 24,1975, where by, the learned lower court has acquitted accused sultan and dhonkal of all the offences with which they were charge by giving them the benefit of doubt. it has, however, held accused bhanu guilty of the offence under section 304 part ii, ipc and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. he was also convicted under section 447 ipc and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one month. accused surjaram and hajari were convicted under sections 447 and 323 ipc and mst. shanti and mst. saraswati were convicted under section 447 ipc. however, looking to the circumstances of the case in which the offences were committed and having regard to the character of the accused and in the absence of any previous conviction recorded against them, the learned lower court has granted them the benefit of the probation of offenders act. it has, however, acquitted all the accused-persons of the offences under sections 302 and 302/149 ipc. aggrieved against this judgment the stale has preferred appeal against all the 7 accused-persons including mst. shanti and mst. saraswati with the prayer that all the accused, persons should have been convicted of the offence under sections 302 or 302/149 ipc. it may be staged here that the state's appeal was not admitted against mst. shanti and mst. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 24 1986 (HC)

Ram Gopal Vs. Smt. Ramnathi Bai

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-24-1986

Reported in : 1987(1)WLN552

narendra mohan kasliwal, j.1. the case of the petitioners is that in village sinota, tehsil pipalda, district kota, one shri chhittar lal s/o bhura lal gujar was the muafidar of 190 bighas 19 biswas of land comprising khasra nos. 211, 298 and 328. a certified copy of the jamabandi for the samvat year 2011 to 2014 has been annexed and marked as annexure-1, according to the petitioners their father jagannath s/o sarwan was cultivating 43 bighas 6 biswas of land comprised in khasra no. 328 as a sub-tenant since samvat 2009-2010. at the time of the coming into force of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 (here in after referred to as 'the 1955 act)' on october 15, 1955, the petitioner father shri jagannath was entered as zaili (sub-tenant in the annual registers and as such he acquired khatedari rights under section 19(1)(a) of the act.2. it has been further alleged that muafi lands of shri chhittar lal were resumed under provisions of the rajasthan land reforms and resumption jagirs act, 1952 with effect from july 1, 1958 and the right, title and interest of chhitar lal and every other person claiming through him in his muafi lands stood resumed to the government free from all encumbrances.3. it has been further alleged that shri jagannath expired in the year 1968 and he was survived by the petitioners, who are his sons and the land in question was cultivated by shri jagannath during his life time and after the death of jagannath it is cultivated by the petitioners, shri chhitar mal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 1986 (HC)

Omkar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-13-1986

Reported in : 1987(2)WLN658

inder sen israni, j.1. this is a criminal revision petition filed by omkar and others under section 397/401 cr. pc against the judgment dated 20-3-1986 passed by the learned additional sessions judge, dausa, camp at jaipur in cr. revision petition no. 13/85, whereby he accepted the revision petition of the non-petitioner and reversed the judgment and order dated 11th november, 1982 passed by the munsif and judicial magistrate, sambher in cr. case no. 81/82 (345/79), by which the learned munsif had discharged the petitioners for offence alleged to have been committed under sections 419, 420, 468 and 120b, ipc.2. brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that complainant mangu alias ramjiwan s/o dalu ram ahir, resident of haripura filed a criminal complaint in the court of munsif magistrate, sambher-lake against 7 persons, including the petitioners, alleging that there is a land bearing khasra no. 323 measuring 2 bighas and 15 biswas and khasra no. 325 measuring bighas and 11 biswas, situate at village bagpura, which belonged to the complainant and the pass-book of the said land is also with him. it was alleged that all the accused petitioners conspired together on 23-9-1978 that the complainant had expired and that mogha, kalu gangaram, and ramlal are his legal representatives, therefore, the mutation entries he made in their names. it was also alleged that srinath das, patwari chandlal sarpanch and omkar also supported this false story. the complainant, therefore, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 1986 (HC)

Shaitan Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-06-1986

Reported in : 1986WLN(UC)22

jas raj chopra, j.1. this is an appeal against the judgment of the learned addl. sessions judge no. 2, jodhpur dated january 27, 1978 whereby the learned lower court held the accused appellants guilty of the offences as under:(1) karim khan : under sections 325, 147, 323/149, 435/149 ipc; (2) bhagwan singh : under sections 435, 147, 325/149, 323/149, ipc; (3) inder singh, (4) roop singh, (5) saitan singh, (6) gani khan, (7) mehardin, (8) bhoore khan : under sections 147, 323, 435/149, 325/149 ipc; (9) safi khan : under sections 147, 435/149, 325/149, 323/149, ipc.out of these 9 accused persons, bhagwan singh, safi khan and gani khan have been given the benefit of probation of offenders act and, therefore, they have preferred no appeal.2. the remaining accused persons have been sentenced by the learned lower court as follows : (1) karim khan under section 325 ipc : 2 years' r.i. and a fine of rs 200/-, indefault to undergo 2 months' simple imprisonment, under section 147 ipc : one year r.i. under section 435/149 ipc : 6 months r.i. and a fine of rs. 200/- in default, to undergo 2 months simple imprisonment, under section 323/149 ipc : 6 months r.i. (2) inder singh ) under section 325/149 ipc : 2 years' r.l and (3) roop singh ) a fine of rs. 200/-, in default to undergo 2 (4) saitan singh ) months simple imprisonment, (5) mehardin under section 147 ipc one year r.i. (6) bhoore khan under section 435/149 ipc 6 months r.i. and a fine of rs. 200/-, in default, to undergo 2 months .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 1986 (HC)

Udai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-08-1986

Reported in : 1986WLN(UC)688

kishan mal lodha, j.1. udasingh has been convicted by the learned sessions judge, jalore for the offence under section 304, part ii, ipc and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 1500/, in default of payment of fine he is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. further it was ordered that if the fine was realised then it should be paid to the heirs of deceased bhanwarsingh. two appeals have been preferred against this judgment dated june 5, 1982. accused udaisingh has preferred a jail appeal against his conviction while the state has preferred an appeal for securing his conviction under section 302, ipc. both these appeals are being disposed of by this judgment and udaisingh shall, here in after be referred to as the appellant.2. appellant udaisingh was running a hotel of meat and 'roti' at bhinmal in a room arranged by pw 2 mohanlal. he had also arranged for the utensils and the necessary furniture for this purpose. on january 6, 1982, at about 8 p.m. deceased bhanwarsingh son of bhoorsingh, constable of bhinmal and pw 13 bhanwarsingh son of bhagatsingh of ledhermed, who had come to bhinmal to attend some court hearing together, went to the appellant for having their meals. the deceased had also gone there with the intention of checking the wine shop and the meat hotel and he found that the wine shop was locked. when they reached the hotel of the appellant, they found the hotel closed. the deeeased bhanwarsingh called out appellant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 1986 (HC)

Mani Ram Banwarilal and Etc. Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal an ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-16-1986

Reported in : AIR1987Raj73; 1986(1)WLN16

orderashok kumar mathur, j.1. in both the writ petitions identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore they are disposed of by this common order.2. for the sake of convenience the facts of s. b. civil writ petition no. 998 of 1982 are taken into consideration. the petitioner is existing operator of hanumangarh sirsa inter-state route holding one non-temporarystage carriage permit in the joint name of mani ram and banwarilal. at present they are plying their vehicle from hanumangarh to surowala because the state of haryana curtailed the route lying in the haryana state. the r.t.a. bikaner in its meeting held on 3rd feb., 1981 granted contract carriage permits one each in favour of non-petitioners nos. 3 to 11 with regard to haryana to fatehpur via satipura dholia etc. without notifying the same in the rajpatra so as to afford the opportunity for filing objections. aggrieved against this grant the petitioners filed the revision petition before the state appellate tribunal under section 64-a of the motor vehicles act along with the application for condonation of delay for filing the revision petition in time. the state transport appellate tribunal after hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that in view of the case of bhupendra singh v. r.t.a., 1981 raj lw 467: (air 1982 raj 97), the petitioner has no locus standi and has no right to oppose the grant of contract carriage permit. the state transport appellate tribunal held that since the petitioner is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 1986 (HC)

Chhota Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-22-1986

Reported in : 1986(2)WLN20

mahendra bhushan sharma, j.1. the learned additional sessions judge no. 1, nohar has convicted the accused appellant chhota singh under section 307 and 326 ipc. for the first offence he has been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 500/-, in default of payment of which to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. under the second count, i.e. section 326 ipc the accaused has been sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 400/-, in default of which to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. the case of the prosecution is that the houses of gurdeosingh pw 4 and accused appellant are situated in the same locality in village gogamedi. on august 9, 1982 at about 9 or 10 a.m. gurdeo singh pw 4 had brought same earth in his tractor and was unloading it infront of his house where it is alleged that the accused appellant came armed with a sword. gurdeosingh pw 4 is said to be at that time levelling the earth which has been unloaded by him. the accused appellant asked him not to do so as according to him the land which (gurdeosingh was levelling) belonged to him. at this accused became enraged and gave a sword blow, which was aimed at the head of gurdeosingh pw 4 but the blow was taken by him on his hand as a result of which a part of his hand was amputated. the accused repeated the assault and caused more injuries with the sword. a report ex. .....

Tag this Judgment!


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