Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: rajasthan Year: 1996 Page 1 of about 56 results (0.012 seconds)

Feb 16 1996 (HC)

Suresh Kumar Yadav Vs. Chiranjilal Yadav and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-16-1996

Reported in : 1996(3)WLC303; 1996(1)WLN563

..... of rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner as it was expected of him to move a court of law, only after exhausting all the alternative remedies including the intervention and mediation by the family assuming that the averments alleged by him are true. we accordingly direct the deputy registrar (judicial) of this court to pay the amount of rs. 5,000 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 1996 (HC)

The Topkhana Desh Grah Nirman Sahkari Samlti Limited Vs. the State of ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-31-1996

Reported in : 1996(1)WLN580

v.k. singhal, j.1. a preiminary objection has been raised that the petitioner society has no locus standi to file the writ petition as neither the copy of the resolution has been submitted nor the copies of the agreement to sale on the basis of which the right is claimed have been filed and the writ petition is not maintainable as no title was transferred in favour of the society and even according to the averments made in the writ petition there was an agreement to sale only.2. mr. agarwal appearing on behalf of khatedars has submitted that there is no valid agreement to sale and civil suits are pending on the basis thereof.3. mr. mahendra singh on behalf of. rajasthan housing board stated that in the so called agreement with the rajasthan housing board, which was not approved by the state government, the society has filed the civil suit in the court of district judge for enforcement of the agreement. it is also submitted that the sale agreements are alleged to be executed in the year 1975 and no action was taken till 1982 which shows that the alleged agreements are fictitious documents as no khatedars would have given the possession and the petitioner would not have kept silent till 1982. even in the revenue record, there is no change and as such the petitioner has no right to file the writ petition.4. reliance has been placed on the decision of this court in the case of the krishna cooperative housing society ltd. v. rajasthan housing board, jaipur and ors. s.b. civil writ .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 1996 (HC)

Dhanna Lal and ors. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-06-1996

Reported in : 1996(2)WLN106

y.r. meena, j.1. by this writ petition under articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of india, the petitioners have prayed that the order of board of revenue be quashed.2. the petitioners are khatedar tenant of agricultural land khasra no. 272/2/2 measuring 28 bighas 6 biswas, situated in village itawa tehsil amer. on 6.2.79. the tehsildar amer moved an application before the additional collector, jaipur with an averment that on the settlement register of the village itawa for the year svt. 2011 to 2033 prabhat s/o balu meena is recorded as khatedar of the land khasra no. 272/2/2 measuring 28 bighas 6 biswas. in the year 1961, the khatedari of the land has been transferred in the name of dhanna, nanu and prabhat sons of harla, vide mutation no. 105 dated 25.11.1961.3. since the original khatedar of the land was a member of scheduled tribe, the subsequent transfer of khatedar in the name of dhanna, nanu and prabhat ahir hit by section 42 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 [hereinafter to be referred as 'act, 1955'] and therefore, the mutation no. 105 dated 25.11.61 be quashed. the additional collector, jaipur issued notice to petitioners.4. the petitioners appeared before the additional collector, jaipur contended that the petitioners were cultivators of the land and the land was in their possession since the time immemorial and the name of prabhat meena was wrongly entered in revenue record. that was correct and the mutation no. 105 dated 25.11.61 was sanctioned in favour of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 10 1996 (HC)

State of Rajasthan Vs. the Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-10-1996

Reported in : 1996(3)WLC426; 1996(2)WLN195

mukul gopal mukherji, acting c.j.1. this appeal is filed by the state of rajasthan through the secretary, revenue department impugning a judgment and order dated december 12, 1995 whereby a learned single judge dismissed the writ application filed by the state of rajasthan under article 226 of the constitution of india seeking to quash an order of the board of revenue dated november 5, 1990 as well as a decree passed by the assistant collector, nawa dated september 21, 1985. the learned single judge dismissed the writ application mainly on the ground of delay and further held that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the assistant collector as upheld by the board of revenue. hence the special appeal before us.2. admittedly, the land as recorded in khasra no. 622 measuring 2836 bighas 9 biswas situated in village nawa was entered as a government land in the revenue records, out of which a portion of 3 bighas was allotted to one lalaram in smt. year 2018 for three years. the settlement was given on account of the said lalaram being a landless person. on the basis of jamabandi entries the said lalaram sold this three bighas of land to respondent no. 2 nena ram son of mangilal jat on october 10, 1984 by a registered sale-deed. on the basis of the sale-deed mutation no. 998 was sanctioned in the name of nena ram by the tehsildar, nawa on april 17, 1985. the said respondent nena ram however filed a suit for declaration and injunction on september 3, 1985 against lalaram .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 17 1996 (HC)

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

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-17-1996

Reported in : 1996(3)WLC431; 1996(1)WLN547

b. rarora, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8.1.86 passed by the learned single judge, by which the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellants and maintained the order passed by the board of revenue.2. appellants amb singh and jai singh sons of shri moti singh, were recorded as co-tenants in the jamabandi of sarnvat years 2001 to 2005 with respect to 466 bighas 11 biswas of land situated in village sikwasra tehsil bhinmal district jalore. this land they inherited from their father. by way of partition dated 21.1.68 recorded in the bahi maintained by them, 261 bighas (equivalent to 40.95 standard acres) of the land came to the share of jai singh while 205 bighas 11 biswas of the land came to the share of amb singh. this partition was got registered in the office of the sub-registrar on 28.5.70. in pursuance to this partition, mutation was, also, sanctioned on 21.8.71 and necessary entries were made in the revenue records.3. both the brothers filed separate declarations under rule 9 of the rajasthan tenancy (fixation of ceiling of land) government rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred as 'the rules') before the sub- divisional officer, bhinmal for the determination of the ceiling area applicable to them. the sub-divisional officer, bhinmal, by his order dated 31.5.75 decided the petitioners' cases and determined the ceiling area applicable to them. the sub-divisional officer recognised and accepted the partition dated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 12 1996 (HC)

Roshan Lal Vs. State of Raj.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-12-1996

Reported in : 1997(1)WLC554; 1996(2)WLN474

m.a.a. khan, j.1. by his impugned judgment and order dated october 15, 1992 the learned sessions judge. byana, distt- bharatpur has confirmed the conviction of sentence of the petitioner for the offences under sections 420 and 467 i.p.c. on the basis of following facts--the petitioner was the recorded tenant of khasra plot nos. 1332 admeasuring 3 bighas. 17 biswas and 1333 admeasuring 4 bighas 19 biswas situate at weir. hadain patti. distt-bharatpur. it was alleged that the petitioner had mortgaged the said land, alongwith some other lands with the state bank of bikaner and jaipur at bharatpur on 13.11.1969 to secure a loan of rs. 7,000/-. however, on 26.5.1971 the petitioner sold the aforesaid land to pw-3 jagdish prasad for a consideration of rs. 10,500/-and also delivered the possession thereof to the purchaser. it appears that the state bank of bikaner and jaipur had unsuccessfully proceeded against the petitioner in the year 1972-73 for recovery of its loan. in the year 1976 pw-3 jagdish prasad filed a report with police station. weir alleging therein that the petitioner had concealed the fact of his having mortgaged the land to the bank before selling the same to him. on the basis of the report of pw-3 jagdish prasad a case under section 420 ipc was registered against the petitioner and one ratan lal patwari (since deceased). both were charge- sheeted. since ratan lal patwari died during the pendency of the case, the learned magistrate tried the present petitioner for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 1996 (HC)

Central Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer Vs. Sanjay Kumar

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-04-1996

Reported in : AIR1996Raj203; 1996(2)WLC552; 1996(1)WLN176

arun madan, j.1. the appellant central board of secondary education (for short 'the board') having its regional office at ajmer has come up in second appeal before this court against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 13th february, 1995 (adj no. 3, jaipur), whereby the first appellate court reversed the judgment and decree dated 27th august, 1994 passed by the addl. civil judge (junior division) and munsiff magistrate no. 1, jaipur district, jaipur in civil suit no. 11/94 (42/92).2. the facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent-plaintiff who is a student of tagore public school, shastri nagar, jaipur, had filed a suit for permanent injunction in the court of addl. court judge no. 1, jaipur contending inter alia, that he had pursued the requisite course of study in the aforesaid school for appearing in the examination of class-xii to be conducted by the board. it was pleaded in the suit that he had been regularly attending the classes and had completed 145 days of regular attendance for appearing in the said examination as against the requirement of 161 days and the attendance was about 80% as per the record of the school, therefore, he should be accorded necessary permission for appearing in the said examination as the same was denied to him by the defendants. it was further contended by the respondent-plaintiff that the school authorities were in possession of all the records including the attendance .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 1996 (HC)

Mahaveer Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-04-1996

Reported in : 1996(2)WLN584

n.c. kochhar, j.1. on an application having been moved by the petitioner under rule 256 of the rajasthan panchayat (general) rules, 1961 (the rules), the respondent no. 2 sold to him the land in dispute and issued a patta (annex. 2) in respect thereof in his favour. the respondents no. 3 to 7 challenged the said sale by moving an application/revision under rule 272 of the rules. the learned additional collector, sikar (who has not been impleaded as a party in this writ petition), after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has, vide the impuged order dated 3.12.1985 (annex. 3), quashed the sale and the patta on the ground that the sale was not in accordance with the rules and was bad. feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court by filing this writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india.2. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that along with the application/revision filed by the respondent no. 3 to 7 they had not attached the certified copy of the resolution-of the respondent no. 2 and of the patta issued in favour of the petitioner and, as such, the additional collector ought to have dismissed the application/revision on that short ground and had no power to go into the matter on merits.4. rule 272, which deals with the revision, reads as under-272. revision--(1) the state government or any officer or authority to whom the powers of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 1996 (HC)

Mahaveer Prasad Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-04-1996

Reported in : 1996(3)WLC595; 1996(1)WLN593

n.c. kochhar, j.1. on an application having been moved by the petitioner under rule 256 of the rajasthan panchayat (general) rules, 1961 (the rules), the respondent no. 2 sold to him the land in dispute and issued a patta (annex. 2) in respect thereof in his favour. the respondents no. 3 to 7 challenged the said sale by moving an application/revision under rule 272 of the rules. the learned additional collector, sikar (who has not been impleaded as a party in this writ petition), after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has, vide the impugned order dated 3.12.1985 (annex. 3), quashed the sale and the patta on the ground that the sale was not in accordance with the rules, and was bad. feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court by filing this writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india.2. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that along with the application/revision filed by the respondent no. 3 to 7 they had not attached the certified copy of the resolution of the respondent no. 2 and of the patta issued in favour of the petitioner and, as such, the additional collector ought to have dismissed the application/revision on that short ground and had no power to go into the matter on merits.4. rule 272, which deals with the revision, reads as under-272. revision-(1) the state government or any officer or authority to whom the powers of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 1996 (HC)

Saraf Textile Workers Union Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-09-1996

Reported in : [1997(75)FLR445]; (1996)IILLJ841Raj

orderarun madan, j.1. the petitioner which is a registered trade union, espousing the cause of the aggrieved workman, has moved to this court by the instant writ petition through its general secretary shri madan singh, contending inter-alia that the petitioner is a union of the workmen employed in the industrial establishment of m/s saraf textile industries ltd., sanganer, jaipur - respondent no. 2, which is affiliated to the rajasthan trade union kendra, jaipur. a charter of demands dated july 28, 1988 on behalf of its workmen was submitted to the management of respondent no.2 vide annex-1. the demands were to the following effect:1. the services of all the workmen should be regularised and the workmen who have been removed from service should be taken back to duty. 2. the increase of wage @ 35% be given to the piece rated workmen. 3. 25% increase be given in wage to those workmen who are employed at the fixed rate. 4. dearness allowance @ re. 1.50 per point be given to the workmen as per consumer index for jaipur and ajmer and this benefit should be extended with effect from august, 1988. 5. the workmen should be given medical allowance of rs. 50 per month. 6. the workmen should be supplied two cakes of soap per month. 7. the workmen should be given two uniforms in each year. 8. all the workmen should be given p.l. & c.l. benefit and should also be given atleast 12 gazetted holidays in a year as per rules. 9. all the workmen should be given overtime allowance. 10. the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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