Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: rajasthan Year: 2009 Page 1 of about 56 results (0.011 seconds)

Jan 20 2009 (HC)

Akhilesh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-20-2009

Reported in : 2009CriLJ2205; RLW2009(1)Raj746

..... . it was also stated in the report that on 17th april, 1998 his daughter kavita was married with akhilesh s/o dwarka prasad; the marriage took place at jaipur; the mediator was shri radheyshyam gupta - the uncle of akhilesh. he agreed to spend five to six lac rupees in the marriage but radheyshyam gupta, dwarka prasad, radhey mohan gupta, akhilesh and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 2009 (HC)

Leeladhar Vs. Bherubagh JaIn Tirth and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-18-2009

Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj2638

vineet kothari, j.1. this misc. appeal has been filed under section 40(3) of the rajasthan public trust act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the act of 1959) against the order of the learned additional dist. and sessions judge no. 3, jodhpur dtd. 23.7.2001 dismissing the civil misc. application no. 4-a/1991 filed by the appellant under section 40 of the said act seeking to set aside the sale made by the respondent no. 1 - public trust in favour of the respondent no. 5 - a housing society of a land measuring 53.11 bighas situated at village gewa, dist. jodhpur on 18.10.1985 for a sum of rs. 9,55,557/-.2. none appeared for the appellant on both the days though the matter was heard in part on 17.3.2009 and again kept today for dictation of order/judgment, therefore, the arguments of mr. j.m. bhandari, learned counsel for the respondents were heard and record was perused.3. the main contentions raised by the applicant before the learned trial court in the application under section 40 of the act appears to be that the sale in question made by the respondent no. 1 - public trust on 18.10.1985 was without any sanction obtained from the assistant commissioner, devasthan department as required by section 31 of the said act and therefore, the said sale was not valid. the applicant also contended that the land in question belonged to deity and therefore, the public trust could not sell the said land. he also contended that the provisions of rajasthan urban land ceiling act applied and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 2009 (HC)

Babu Singh Vs. the Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-26-2009

Reported in : 2009(2)WLN4

r.s. chauhan, j.1. the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 06.07.1994 passed by the additional collector whereby a reference was made to the board of revenue with regard to mutation which was opened in favour of the petitioner. the petitioner has also challenged the order of the board of revenue dt. 28.04.1995 whereby the reference was allowed and the mutation made in favour of the petitioner was set aside and the land was directed to be mutated in the name of mandir shri madangopalji maharaj virajman moja bahrawali.2. the brief facts of the case are that the land situated in village bahrawali, tehsil roopbas, district bharatpur bearing khasra nos. 142, 156, 163, 140, 159, 160, 161, 246, 245, 157, 158, 162 and 163 were shown as a 'muafi land' of pandit gordhan singh as far back as samvat year 1978-79. however, in the year 1945, the said land was shown in the revenue record, in the name of mandir gopalji maharaj and in the name of petitioner's father, prabhu, as 'ghair morusidar pattedar' (sub-tenant). on 20.06.1957, prabhu applied to the sdo for confirmation of khatedari rights under section 19 of the rajasthan tenancy act. vide order dt. 24.05.1958, the sdo allowed the application and conferred khatedari rights. it is pertinent to note that despite the fact that both the state government and the temple were parties before the sdo, they did not challenge the order dt. 24.05.1958. hence, the said order achieved finality. in pursuance of the order dt. 24.05.1958, a mutation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 2009 (HC)

Bhagirath Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-16-2009

Reported in : 2009(3)WLN186

prakash tatia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the plaintiff/appellant bhagirath is aggrieved against the judgment dt. 24.05.1995 passed by the board of revenue, ajmer allowing the second appeal preferred by defendant/respondent bana ram. the board of revenue dismissed the suit of the plaintiff filed for declaration of khatedari rights of the plaintiff and eviction of the defendant.3. we perused the reasons given by the courts below and we need not to refer the facts in detail as the learned single judge and the board of revenue, both were of the view that there is no merit in the suit of the plaintiff. the board of revenue has considered various aspects and some of the facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that as per the appellant himself, the defendant trespassed over the land in question in samwat year 2017 (corresponding year 1960); the land was declared siwai chak i.e. government land in samwat year 2020 (corresponding year 1963); the land was allotted to the defendant by allotment order dt. 31.07.1965 (corresponding samwat year 2022) and the land was mutated in the name of defendant on 10.08.1967 (corresponding samwat year 2024). the original khatedar tenants sultan singh and kana ram did not challenge any of the action of the state government either of recording the land as government land in the year 1963 nor allotting the land in favour of the defendant in the year 1965 nor the mutation order passed in favour of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 2009 (HC)

V.K. Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-23-2009

Reported in : 2009(2)WLN250

prem shanker asopa, j.1. by this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the charge sheet dt. 30.05.2008 issued for misconduct of declaring him hostile by the a.c.d. court while recording his statement on 20.11.2002.2. briefly stated, facts of the case are that statement of the petitioner under section 161 cr.p.c. was recorded in a trap case by the police as an independent witness on 20.11.2002. subsequently, he was called as prosecution witness by the a.c.d. court and his evidence was recorded on 09.03.2007. at the request of the public prosecutor, the petitioner was declared hostile witness and permission to cross-examine was granted to the public prosecutor. treating the contradiction in the two aforesaid statements - (i) under section 161 cr.p.c. and (ii) under section 164 cr.p.c. the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 30.05.2008.3. it is stated in the writ petition that whether a witness is trustworthy or not, has to be decided by the court and not by the government and unless the court gives a clear finding of the witness being untrustworthy, no misconduct is made out. here, in the instant case, the proceedings are still pending, therefore, there is no justification to issue the charge sheet.4. state of rajasthan, in its reply, has stated that the petitioner has made incorrect statement before the court, therefore, charge sheet has rightly been issued.5. submission of counsel for the petitioner is that no misconduct is made out and even if the charges .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 2009 (HC)

Gopi Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-30-2009

Reported in : 2009(2)WLN479

mohammad rafiq, j.1. this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the board of revenue dt. 20.06.2000 by which judgment of the learned revenue appellate authority dt. 23.04.1992 was set-aside and that of sub divisional magistrate bayana dt. 09.07.1990 was restored. petitioner has also challenged the judgment of s.d.m. dated 09.07.1990.2. the factual matrix of the case is that tehsildar roopwas initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner as well as respondent no. 2 under section 175 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 (for short, 'act of 1955') in the court of learned additional city magistrate, bayana in the year 1976. learned acm rejected the application vide order dt. 05.02.1977. when petitioner came to know about the same on enquiry he learnt that in the revenue record, he was shown as 'shikmi kashtkar' in respect of land bearing khasra no. 34 measuring 4 bighas 4 biswas situated at village mamtoli, police station roopwas, tehsil and district bharatpur whereas petitioner and his predecessor i.e. his father (ghoori) was khatedar of the said land and therefore petitioner filed a suit for declaration of his right and perpetual injunction against respondent no. 2 on the premise that the land in dispute was in possession of petitioner's father ghoori and that he was cultivating the same as a khatedar ever since 2017 and after his death in 2023, land was mutated in favour of the petitioner vide mutation dt. 08.10.1971 and since then, .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 05 2009 (HC)

Jhabar Ram Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-05-2009

Reported in : 2009(3)WLN181

sangeet lodha, j.1. this writ petition is directed against order dt. 10.07.1996 passed by the board of revenue, rajasthan, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent no. 4 shri lachhu ram against the judgment and decree dt. 10.04.1991 passed by the revenue appellate authority (in short 'raa' hereinafter), bikaner has been allowed. consequently, the judgment and decree dt. 28.02.1986 passed by the assistant collector, rajgarh dismissing the suit preferred by the petitioner, stands restored.2. the brief facts relevant for the present purpose are that late shri aad ram was holding 106 bighas of land in punsisar and somsisar, tehsil taranagar, district churu. he was also holding 75.15 bighas of land in tidiasar, tehsil nohar, district sri ganganagar. late shri aad ram was survived by four sons namely, girdhari, lachhu ram, farsa ram and oma ram. out of these four sons, oma ram expired issue less . farsa ram also expired living behind his widow smt. shera. the petitioner herein is adopted son of smt. shera.3. after the death of shri aad ram, the land measuring 75.15 bighas situated in village tidiasar was mutated in the names of girdhari and lachhu ram 2/3 share and smt. shera, widow of farsa ram 1/3 share vide mutation opened on 22.08.1956. however, the mutations in respect of the lands situated in villages punsisar and somsisar were opened in the names of girdhari and lachhu ram only excluding smt. shera. the mutation in respect of the land situated in punsisar and somsisar .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 15 2009 (HC)

Abbas Bhai and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-15-2009

Reported in : 2009(3)WLN211

sangeet lodha, j.1. this writ petition is directed against order dt. 23.06.2006 passed by the board of revenue, rajasthan whereby revision petition preferred by the respondent no. 2 against the order dt. 13.12.2000 passed by the assistant collector, mount abu in revenue suit no. 62/93 has been allowed and consequently, the aforesaid suit filed by the petitioners before the assistant collector, mount abu has been dismissed as not maintainable.2. the relevant facts in nutshell are that shri adam @ azam son of shri jan mohammed, the father of petitioners no. 1 to 8, purchased agriculture lands measuring 2 bighas and 16 biswas comprising khasra nos. 516 and 4 biswas comprising khasra no. 517 from one shri hira koli son of premaji (the father of the respondent no. 1 babu) by way of registered sale deed dt. 25.02.1970 and possession thereof was handed over to the petitioners no. 1 to 8. thereafter, adam @ azam transferred the land to the petitioners no. 9 to 11 but since, the mutation in the revenue record was continuing in the name of shri hira koli therefore, a power of attorney was executed by shri azam in favour of the transferees petitioners no. 9 to 11.3. the state government issued notification under sections 4 and 6 of the land acquisition act, 1894 for acquisition of the lands in question. however, as in the revenue record, the name of the respondent no. 2 babu s/o hira koli was entered therefore, in the notification issued as aforesaid, his name was shown as khatedar .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 20 2009 (HC)

Nisar Mohd. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-20-2009

Reported in : 2009(2)WLN187

prem shanker asopa, j.1. by this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof for quashing of the judgment of the sub divisional officer, jaipur-i dt. 02.09.1996 (anx.8) and those of board of revenue dt. 31.01.2003 (anx.13) and 11.03.2003 (anx.14) and has further prayed that the suit for correction of entries, declaration and perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiff-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') against the defendant non petitioners no. 6 to 16 may kindly be ordered to be decreed. 2. briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case, are as under:3. that the petitioner filed a revenue suit for correction of entries, declaration and perpetual injunction against the defendant on petitioners regarding 60 bighas of land situated in jamdoli, tehsil and district jaipur which had been allotted to yasin khan, father of the petitioner, on account of his being a soldier, by the erstwhile jaipur state which had wrongly been entered partly as sawai chak and partly as charagarh and had been further wrongly placed at the disposal of the jaipur development authority (j.d.a.). the patta issued by the erstwhile jaipur state in favour of yasin khan, father of the petitioner, is on record as annexure-3, who died on 08.05.1992. subsequently, on the strength of the will, suit was filed by the petitioner on 04.05.1994 before the sub divisional officer, jaipur-i.4. j.d.a. filed written statement denying all .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 2009 (HC)

State of Rajasthan Vs. Hans Raj Singh and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-26-2009

Reported in : 2009(3)WLN83

sangeet lodha, j.1. this special appeal is directed against order dt. 22.04.1997 whereby the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred as 'the respondent') herein against the order dt. 04.06.1990 passed by the board of revenue affirming the order dt. 08.07.1985 of collector, jalore directing resumption of 19.06 acre of surplus land vested in the government and order dt. 24.07.1990 dismissing the review application preferred by the respondent for review of order dt. 04.06.1990, has been allowed and accordingly, aforesaid orders dt. 08.07.1985, 04.06.1990 and 24.07.1990 have been quashed and set aside.2. the relevant facts in nutshell are that the ceiling proceedings were initiated against the respondent under the rajasthan imposition of ceiling on agriculture holdings act, 1973 (in short 'the act of 1973' hereinafter) but the same were dropped vide order dt. 19.08.1975 of sub divisional officer (in short 'sdm), jalore. however, the ceiling proceedings were reopened by the state government under section 15(1) of the act of 1973 and the matter was referred to the collector, jalore for decision afresh in accordance with law.3. after due consideration, the collector found that on 01.01.1973 the respondent had 170 bighas 8 biswas of land. the transfer of 70 bighas 14 biswas land made by the respondent no. 1 in favour of one shri khuman singh vide registered sale deed dt. 21.03.1972 was not found to be bona fide transfer, accordingly, .....

Tag this Judgment!

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