Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1972 Page 8 of about 183 results (0.018 seconds)

Aug 07 1972 (HC)

Madan Lal Sharma and anr. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Mohindergarh at ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-07-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H311

order1. the two petitioners, who are a panch and sarpanch respectively of the gram panchayat of village digrota, tehsil and district mohindergarh, have filed this writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india to call in question the order (annexure 'a') passed by the ilaqa magistrate, respondent no. 2, whereby it had been declared that shri ram kanwar respondent no. 4, had been wrongly debarred from contesting the elections to the office of sarpanch by respondent no. 3 who was presiding over these elections. smt. surji petitioner no. 2's return unopposed as the successful sarpanch had, therefore, been set aside by respondent no. 2 and fresh elections had been ordered. shri madan lal sharma petitioner no. 1, joins the party really aggrieved as a sympathiser and he had not been taking a half-hearted interest in the proceedings before the ilaqa magistrate respondent no. 2.2. shri ram kanwar, respondent no. 4, who was the only candidate opposing the candidature of petitioner no. 2 to the office of sarpanch had been convicted some months earlier by a criminal court for offences made punishable under section 148, 447 and 506 read with sections 149 of the indian penal code. he had, however, been given the benefit of section 4 of the probation of offenders act, 1958 (hereinafter briefly referred to as 'the central act') and had been bound down to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to appear and receive sentence when called .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 1972 (HC)

T. Bhandari Vs. the Punjab State and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-09-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H308

order1. the petitioner owns bungalow no. 10 in amritsar cantonment. it is a residential house and is surrounded by residential buildings which are similar bungalows in which officers of the army generally reside. the annual value of this house was assessed at rs.1800/- for purposes of tax under the punjab urban immovable property tax act, 1940, hereinafter referred to as the act, prior to 1961. the annual value once determined under the act endures for a period of five years. on february 10, 1961, the assessing authority, amritsar, determined the annual value of the house at rs.18,000/- and levied the tax on that value. a copy of that order is annexure 'a' to the writ petition. the petitioner went up in appeal and the appellate authority reduced the annual value to rs.12,960/- by order dated may 16, 1963, a copy of which is annexure 'b' to the writ petition. a revision was filed against that order by the petitioner which was partly accepted by the joint excise and taxation commissioner, punjab, by order dated january 27, 1965, and the annual value was reduced to rs. 10,000/-. the petitioner is not satisfied with the determination of the annual value for the purposes of levying the tax under the act and has, therefore, filed the present petition challenging all the three orders set out above. written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which the orders have been justified. 2. the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the annual value for .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 1972 (HC)

Sham Dass Vs. the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-26-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H50

order1. this order of mine would dispose of civil writs nos. 1636 and 1637 of 1965 as common question of law arises in both these petitions.2. the only point involved in these petitions relates to the valuation of the land sought to be purchased under section 18 of the punjab security of land tenures act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the act). the valuation of the land is to be determined under sub-section (2) of section 18 which reads as under:--'18(2). a tenant desirous of purchasing land under sub-section (1) shall make an application in writing to an assistant collector of first grade having jurisdiction over the land concerned and the assistant collector, after giving notice to the land-owner and to all other persons interested in the land and after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, shall determined the value of the land which shall be the average of the prices obtaining for similar land in the locality during 10 years immediately preceding the date on which the application is made.'the assistant collector, first grade, allowed the purchase application of the petitioner-tenant and determined the value of the land at rs. 280.60 paise per bigha and the purchase price as rupees 210.40 paise per bigha, being 3/4th of the value of the land. this decision of the assistant collector was affirmed on appeal by the collector and a revision before the commissioner also failed. on a further revision by the land owners private respondents, the learned financial commissioner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 1972 (HC)

Brahm Singh and ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-17-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H246

1. chaghar singh and his two brothers kartar singh and milkhi ram were owners in equal shares of a joint khata, consisting of agricultural land measuring 91 karnals 18 marlas, situate in village sandhwal, district hoshiarpur. after consolidation, this land became 77 karnals. on 16th august, 1958, by a registered deed, exhibit d/1, chaghar singh sold land measuring 7 karnals 14 marlas, being 1/3rd of 23 kanals 1 marla, comprised in certain khasra numbers mentioned in that deed out of the joint holding in favour of brahm singh for rs. 250/-. similarly, on 27th january, 1960, vide exhibit d/2, he sold another 22 kanals 19 marlas, being 1/3rd of 68 kanals 19 maralas comprised in the khasra numbers mentioned in the deed, out of the same joint holding, to the same vendee for rs. 500/-. in the meantime, consolidation proceedings, which were going on in the village were finished. on 5th october, 1962, vide exhibit d/4, chaghar singh executed another sale-deed, by which he sold 25 kanals 13 marlas being 1/3rd share in 77 karnals, covered by certain killa numbers mentioned in that deed, which was allotted in consolidation in lieu of the original joint holding to brahm singh for rs. 1500/-. the sale price mentioned in exhibits d.1 and d.2 was given credit for in this amount of rs. 1500/- and the balance of rs. 750/- was paid by the vendee at the time of the execution of exhibit d/4. on 3rd may, 1963, by deed exhibit d/5, brahm singh and milkhi ram brother of chaghar singh sold 3 kanals .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 12 1972 (HC)

Deesons Engineers Co. Vs. C.P. Engineering Co.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-12-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H242

1. on the 13th of september, 1967, the appellant and the respondent, who are both firms, appointed shri ram sarup sharma, advocate, chandigarh as the sole arbitrator to go into their accounts and determine the amount due from the respondent to the appellant in respect of their dealings with each other. shri sharma gave his award on the 6th of february 1968, declaring that a sum of rs. 42, 224.22 was due to the appellant from the respondent. the award also made the respondent liable for the appellant's costs amounting to rs. 228/-. on the 22nd of february, 1968, the appellant made an application under sections 14(2), 17 and 31(4) of the arbitration act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the act) to the court of the senior subordinate judge, chandigarh, praying for a direction to the arbitrator to file the said award in court. on the 1st january, 1970, the learned senior subordinate judge accepted the application and made the award a rule of the court. the respondent firm then instituted in this court an appeal which was accepted by tuli, j., who held that the arbitrator had not acted fairly, justly or impartially and had given his award in a hurry without looking into the accounts of the parties, and concluded: 'for the reasons given above, this appeal is accepted and the award of the arbitrator is set aside. in the circumstances, however, i leave the parties to bear their own costs.'on the 28th of august, 1970, the appellant made to the learned senior subordinate judge another .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 1972 (HC)

Ram Saran Dass Vs. the Commissioner, Ambala and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-30-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H11

order1. does section 10-a of the punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1961, apply to a sale or disposition of panchayat land under section 5 of the said act is the only question that falls for determination in his writ petition.2. the issue above said arises from the following facts which are not in serious dispute. the gram panchayat, bhiwan, passed a resolution dated 1st of august, 1967, seeking the sanction of the deputy commissioner, gurgaon, for the sale of land vested in it in order to raise funds for the construction of an urgently needed high school building (vide annexure r-2 to the written statement). on the following day, that is, the 2nd of august, 1967, a public auction was held in which the highest bid was given on behalf of respondents nos.3 to 7 and rs. 700/- were paid in advance at the time of auction. subsequently by a regular deed executed on the 10th of august, 1967, and registered on the following day the 11th of august, 1967 the above said sale was completed. the petitioner who averred himself to be aggrieved by this sale made an application before the collector gurgoan well-high two years after the execution of the above said registered deed seeking that the same be set aside. this application was specifically made under section 10a of the act. the collector by his order dated 28th august, 1970, held that there was an infraction of rule 12 of the punjab village common lands (regulation) rules, 1961 and also suspecting the sale set aside the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 1972 (HC)

Bhalle Ram Vs. Sub-divisional Magistrate, Jind and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-22-1972

Reported in : AIR1974P& H27

order1. this civil writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, has been filed under the following circumstances:--2. the petitioner and respondents nos. 3 to 11 contested the panchayat elections held on july 3, 1971 for membership of the gram panchayat of village ikkas, tehsil and district jind. there was a tie between the petitioner and respondent no. 3 for the last seat of a panch, as both of them had polled 76 votes each. one of the votes, polled by the petitioner was, however declared to be invalid on the ground that it did not bear the official mark of the presiding officer, respondent no. 2 as required by rule ' 34(b) of the haryana gram panchayat election rules, 1971. the petitioner was, therefore, declared to have lost the contest for the last seat and respondent no. 3 was returned as the successful member of the gram panchayat. the petitioner filed an election petition, but it is has been dismissed by the prescribed authority respondent no. 1, by his order dated august, 8, 1972. (annexure a to the writ petition). the petitioner, therefore, prays that the impugned order of respondent no. 1 should be quashed and the return of respondent no. 3, as a member of the gram panchayat should be set aside.3. no one has put in appearance on behalf of any of the respondents. the main submission made by shri jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that there should have been an express mandatory direction issued under rule 16, that the ballot .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 1972 (HC)

Mohinder Partap Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-21-1972

Reported in : AIR1974P& H1

order1. the petitioner who was allotted an evacuee house in amritsar in 1947 as a displaced person from west pakistan has filed this petition under arts. 226 and 227 of the constitution of india calling in question the orders of the officer of the rehabilitation department of the union of india, respondents nos. 1 to 6, for having enhanced the value of the property without notice to the petitioner and thereby to have prevented its transfer on a permanent basis in petitioner's favour. shri panna lal contesting respondent no. 7 had purchased this property at a public auction held by the rehabilitation department after the petitioner's case had been finally decided on 25-11-1961 by the chief settlement commissioner respondent no. 2.2. the present writ petition was filed more than four years after the final decision by respondent no. 1 when the petitioner's revision filed under section 33 of the displaced persons (compensation and rehabilitation) act 1954, had been dismissed. the petitioner had no doubt started another round of unnecessary proceedings with the entire hierarchy of officers in that department but that would not enable him to get over the delay in coming to this court for exercise of its writ jurisdiction. another reason why the petition is liable to be dismissed is that the petitioner has wrongly stated that he was the only allottee of the house in dispute. according to the return filed by the respondent and as mentioned in some of the impugned orders which are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 27 1972 (HC)

Malkiat Singh and anr. Vs. Gram Panchayat Sekha Kalan

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-27-1972

Reported in : AIR1974P& H28

1. this appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the senior subordinate judge, ferozepore, dated october 11, 1961, who affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court by which the suit of the plaintiffs had been dismissed.2. the facts which have given rise to this litigation are the santa singh the father of the plaintiffs was the owner of the land in dispute, which was sold by him along with some other land to ujagar singh and bikar singh. the plaintiffs filed a suit of possession by pre-emption, which was decreed. the revenue officers entered a mutation of gift bearing no. 4657 of the land in dispute in favour of a school situated in sekha kalan, which was managed by the defendant and the same was sanctioned on january 16, 1968. according to the plaintiffs, the mutation in favour of the school is illegal, void and ineffective as their father never made a gift of that property in favour of the school. it is further stated that the gift could not be effected orally by their father as the transfer of property act, 1882 was applicable in the state of punjab and that the consolidation authorities had no right to attest such a mutation. the defendant contested the suit and that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. the trial court came to the conclusion that the civil court had the jurisdiction to try the suit; that the plaintiffs could not challenge the gift and that the plaintiffs were not challenge the gift and that the plaintiffs were not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 1972 (HC)

The State of Punjab Vs. Land Acquisition Collector, Kapurthala and ors ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-06-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H29

order1. the land of the respondents was compulsorily acquired by the government under the land acquisition act, 1894 hereinafter called the act, presumably for some public purpose. the land acquisition collector gave his award regarding the said land on 30th october, 1970. dissatisfied with the award, the state of punjab moved an application under section 18 of the act on 28th april, 1971, for making a reference to the civil court for the reduction of the compensation amount. this application was rejected by the land acquisition collector on 3rd may, 1971, on the ground that it had been filed beyond limitation. against that order, the present petition under article 227 of the constitution has been filed by the state of punjab on 22nd november, 1971.2. a preliminary objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner should have filed a revision petition under section 115, code of civil procedure, against the impugned order, as provided in section 18(3) of the act. the limitation for filing such an application is, admittedly, 90 days under article 131 of the limitation act, 1963. the said limitation being over, the state government has, therefore, chosen to make a petition under article 227 of the constitution.3. i find merit in this contention. section 18(3) of the act reads:--'18(3). any order made by the collector on an application under this section shall be subject to revision by the high court, as if the collector were a court .....

Tag this Judgment!


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