Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: rajasthan Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 69 results (0.014 seconds)

Apr 28 2005 (HC)

Laxmi NaraIn @ Latoor Vs. the State of Raj. and Ladu

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-28-2005

Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj1678; 2005(3)WLC780

..... ran away from there, then they started beating us. ladies were also beaten and they drove the tractors towards us to kill us. then to mediate, prabhata, ramchandra gurjar, narain, harsai etc. came there and mediated with great difficulty. if these persons had not been there then our so many persons would have been crushed and killed by tractors. these persons had .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 2005 (HC)

Sobhag Kanwar (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-14-2005

Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj857; 2006(2)WLC280

s.n. jha, c.j.1. the petitioner along with her sister roop bai filed revenue suit for declaration of their rights and possession over the lands of khasra nos. 29, 72, 75/1 and 75/2 measuring 27 bighas and 14 biswas situated in village chapras, tehsil bundi, by order dated 10th april, 1978 the assistant collector-11, bundi dismissed the suit. the petitioner preferred appeal before the revenue appellate authority which was dismissed on 24th april, 1981. she then filed second appeal before the board of revenue which too was dismissed on 10th october, 1988. she seeks quashing of the said orders. she also seeks quashing of the order of collector, bundi dated 03rd november, 1955 holding that the lands escheated to the darbar/state in terms of sub- section 32 of the bundi tenancy act, 1942 on the death of kishan dan. she also seeks quashing of mutation no. 29 dated 02nd february, 1958 mentioning the name of respondent no. 6 modu with respect to the lands. the petitioner further seeks declaration that the provisions of section 32(a) and (b) of the bundi tenancy act, 1942 are unconstitutional. it is mainly because of the provisions of section 32 of the said act, that the petitioner's claim was rejected by the authorities.2. the case of the petitioner briefly is that her father kishan dan was the khatedar tenant of khasra nos. 29, 72, 75/1 and 75/2 measuring 27 bighas and 14 biswas situated in village chapras, tehsil bundi. he died in samvat 2006 (corresponding to 1949 a.d.) leaving .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 21 2005 (HC)

Rukmani Devi and anr. Vs. Nand Kishore Through Its Legal Representativ ...

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-21-2005

Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj340; 2005(4)WLC734

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. the plaintiff appellants in the instant special appeal seek to quash the judgment dated january 27, 1986 of the learned single judge whereby three civil first appeal, bearing nos. 202/1973, 56/1974 and 185/1974 were decided.2. it is contended on behalf of the appellants that finding of learned single judge that family settlement was not compulsorily registrable is erroneous, as terms of family arrangement were reduced into writing in it. the counsel for the respondent nand kishore, on the other hand supported the impugned judgment.3. having considered the submissions advanced before us and scanned the material on record, we notice that the learned single judge in the impugned judgment observed that the family settlement between the members of the family had taken place as per ex.a-1 which was signed by all the parties, except chunni bai. it was also held that since the family settlement was acted upon by the parties, nothing remained to be partitioned by the court. ratio indicated in kale and ors. v. deputy director of consolidation and ors. : [1976]3scr202 , was considered by the learned single judge and it was held that the family settlement was not compulsorily registrable under section 17 of the registration act.4. in kale and ors. v. deputy director of consolidation and ors. supra, their lordships of the supreme court indicated that the family arrangement may be even oral in which registration is not necessary. registration would be necessary only .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 2005 (HC)

Maharaj Himmat Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-18-2005

Reported in : AIR2006Raj94; 2006(1)WLC278

orderprakash tatia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the present controversy has a chequered history as the controversy started when the union of india issued a notification under section 23(1) of the defence and internal security of india act, 1971 (for short 'the act of 1971') for requisitioning a total land measuring 645 acres. copy of the notification has been placed on record by the petitioners as annex. ii. the description of the property has been given in the notification which is as under: ______________________________________________________________ name of khasra area in acres remark village number jodhpur 298 7.20 state govt. land jodhpur 297 13.60 area 2 1.00 acres jodhpur 426 296.20 private land area jodhpur 632 62.00 acres jodhpur 632/1 158.00 jodhpur 632/4 digeri 170.00 total : 645.00 _____________________________________________________________ 3. it appears from the facts that so far as requisitioning the property by the union of india under the act of 1971 was never challenged by the petitioners and today also, there is no dispute about the requisitioning of the property by the union of india mentioned in the notification dated 6-5-1976 (annex. 11). how much land was acquired by the said notification is also not in dispute. however, the petitioners apprehending that their land may be acquired by the state government under the provisions under sections 7-a and 9-a of the rajasthan land reforms and acquisition of land owner's estates act, 1963 ( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 10 2005 (HC)

Jagan Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jun-10-2005

Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj46; 2005(4)WLC370

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. this appeal impugns the judgment dated october 28, 2002 of the. learned additional sessions judge (fast track) hindaun city rendered in sessions case no. 63/2001 (27/99) whereby the six appellants (herein after to be referred as 'accused'), who are the members of one family, have been convicted and sentenced as under:(1) jagan lal:under section 302 ipc:to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment.under section 148 ipc:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.under section 447 ipc:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.under section 326/149 ipc:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.under section 323/149 ipc:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.under section 3/25 arms act:to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment.(2) ramkesh:under section 302/149 ipc:to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment.under section 148 ipc:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.under section 447 ipc:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.under section 326/149 ipc:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.under section 323/149 ipc .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 21 2005 (HC)

Dharmendra Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-21-2005

Reported in : I(2006)DMC430; 2006(3)WLC408

dalip singh, j.1. these two appeals arise out of the same judgment. d.b. criminal appeal no. 135/2000 has been filed by the accused appellant dharmendra against the judgment dated 8.3.2000 passed by the additional sessions judge, kishangarh, district ajmer in sessions case no. 1/1998 convicting the appellant dharmendra for the offences under sections 302 and 201 ipc. the appellant dharmendra was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 302 ipc. he was further sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 500 for the offence under section 201, ipc and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. in s.b. criminal appeal no. 100/2000 the accused appellant madanlal was convicted of the offence under section 201, ipc by the judgment dated 8.3.2000 in sessions case no. 1/1998 by the additional sessions judge, kishangarh, district ajmer and was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a find of rs. 500 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment3. since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 8.3.2000, hence were heard together.4. the facts in brief are that on 20.3.1996 p.w. 14 totaram submitted a written report exhibit p-33 at police station, kishangarh, district .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 2005 (HC)

Madan Mohan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-19-2005

Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj688

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. under the discretionary powers provided by rule 296 of the rajasthan panchayati raj rules, 1996, the state government appointed madan mohan sharma and dharmendra kumar sharma (mms and dks) on the post of teacher grade iii in the year 2000. the persons who were more meritorious than mms and dks filed writ petitions seeking their appointment on the post of teacher grade iii and quashing the appointment of mms and dks. learned single judge vide order dated february 12, 2001 struck down rule 296 and quashed the appointment of mms and dks. the prayer of the meritorious persons for appointing them on the said post was also declined. it is against this order of the learned single judge that these 73 appeals have been filed.2. contextual facts depict that on may 25, 1996 the posts of teacher grade iii were advertised by zila parishad sawai madhopur wherein it was stipulated that the selection process will be held in terms of the circular dated july 24,1995 issued by the state government in exercise of powers under rule 17(2) of rajasthan panchayat samitis and zila parishad act, 1959. last date of submitting the applications and documents in support of the eligibility and merit was fixed as june 17, 1996. in the circular dated july 24, 1995 it was stated that the marks secured by a candidate in secondary and b.ed/bstc course shall constitute the basis of preparing his merit for appointment on the post of teacher grade iii.3. on july 20, 1996 another circular .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 12 2005 (HC)

Sugan Chand Vs. Madan Lal Through Lrs. and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-12-2005

Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj557; 2006(1)WLC412

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. this is plaintiff's second appeal against the decree and judgment dated july 21, 1979 of the district judge sawai madhopur reversing the decree and judgment dated october 17, 1977 of munsif sawai madhopur whereby plaintiff's suit for possession of the suit land was decreed and the defendants to remove their material from the suit land and to close the door and windows. the defendant respondents have filed cross objection.2. this court while admitting the appeal on january 21, 1980 framed following substantial question of law:-(i) whether the interpretation put by the learned district judge on the various documents of the title showing the ownership of the disputed land of the plaintiff is proper or not?(ii) whether the sale of the disputed land by the municipal board, sawai madhopur without the permission and approval of the collector is proper or not?(iii) whether the lower appellate court could have ignored the site inspection note of the learned munsif while deciding this appeal and in the absence of failure to take into consideration the said inspection note, the judgment of the learned district judge is vitiated or not?in case the decision of the learned munsif in the matter of appreciation of evidence is not improper, was the district judge empowered to set aside and give a different version of his own in the circumstances?3. initially this appeal was decreed on january 17, 2000 but the review application filed by the defendant respondents was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 2005 (HC)

Laj Kaur and anr. Vs. Shanti Devi Through Lrs.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-09-2005

Reported in : AIR2006Raj115; RLW2006(1)Raj562; 2006(1)WLC609

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. in civil second appeal no. 192/1981 following substantial question of law was formulated on july 17, 1981 :-whether the lower appellate court entertained the appeal after expiry of the prescribed period of limitationthis court considered the question and allowed the appeal of the landlord on october 17, 1997 while granting six months time to the tenant to vacate the suit premises.2 an application seeking review of the said order was filed by the tenant on april 7, 1998, which was dismissed in default on october 1, 1999. thereafter the tenant filed instant misc. application on april 27, 2004 under sections 151 and 152 of the code of civil procedure seeking amendment in the judgment dated october 17, 1997 rendered in second appeal no. 192/1981.3. it is contended by mr. a.k. bhargava, learned counsel for the tenant applicant that on october 17, 1997 the tenant and his counsel could not appear before this court and the landlord did not place correct facts before this court, since the material facts were concealed, the judgment dated october 17, 1997 is required to be recalled. reliance is placed on s.p. chengalvaraya naidu v. jagannath 1994 dnj (sc) 7, mangi lai v. state of raj. 1997 (2) rlr 755 : rlw 1997 (3) raj. 2017, shri paresar v. municipal board, mount abu 1996 (1) rlr 649, sushil kumar mehta v. gobind ram bohra : (1990)1scc193 , beli ram v. chaudhri mohammad afzal air (35) 1948 privy council 168, asharfi lal v. koili : air1995sc1440 and collector, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 06 2005 (HC)

Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-06-2005

Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj794

v.k. bali, j.1. ankit bansal, a child of four years, studying in nursery, as per prosecution version was done to death by the appellant kailash bansal, real brother of father of the hapless child. put to trial, the offence committed by him was held established vide judgment recorded by the learned additional sessions judge (fast track) no. 2, ajmer dated 15.3.2002 vide which he has been held guilty for offence under-section 302 ipc and sentenced to undergo r.i. for life and to pay fine of rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rl for three months.2. prosecution in its endeavour to secure conviction against the appellant, relied upon statement made by pw-26, accomplice of the appellant in the commission of crime who turned approver and circumstantial evidence details whereof shall be given in the forthcoming paragraphs.3. in this appeal filed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 15.3.2002 learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the approver is unworthy of credence and for sustaining conviction the court must look for some corroboration to the statement made by him and reject his testimony out rightly as he has not come up with truth at all and further that the so called chain of evidence based on circumstances is all a made up affair. learned public prosecutor, however, joins issues with the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on the two points referred to above. before, however, we may answer the two fold .....

Tag this Judgment!


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