State of Raj. and ors Vs. Mohammed Usman

State of Raj. and ors vs Mohammed Usman

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Jodhpur Decided Oct 25, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1096471

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1096471
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided On: Oct 25, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Raj. and ors

Respondent

Mohammed Usman

Excerpt

.....to find even a wee bit of reason to consider interference. in these appeals, the appellants seek to question the similar nature orders dated 03.05.2013, as passed in cwp nos.273/2013, 265/2013, and 274/2013 respectively, whereby, the learned single judge of this court has admitted the respective writ petitions preferred by the licencees of the liquor shops, on their grievance against the demand of enhanced license fees, which was raised after an alleged survey about location; and has confirmed the interim orders dated 10.01.2013 whereby, recovery of the impugned demand was ordered to remain stayed. this court has, time and again, observed that the question of d.b.civil special appeal (w) no.687/2013. state of rajasthan & ors.versus mohammed usman (with two similar matters.2 granting or refusing the interim relief is essentially within the domain and jurisdiction of the learned single of the court dealing with the matter; and, ordinarily, such exercise of jurisdiction does not call for interference in intra-court appeal unless there be a strong case of substantial failure of justice. in the present matters.where the impugned demands remain seriously in dispute and the learned single judge, after having heard both the parties, found the writ petitions preferred by the licencees worth consideration; and has admitted the same for hearing; and has confirmed the interim orders operating since 10.01.2013 to last until the disposal of writ petitions, the exercise of jurisdiction remains unexceptionable. no case for interference being made out, the appeals fail and are, therefore, dismissed summarily. (p.k.lohra).j. (dinesh maheshwari).j. /mohan/

Full Judgment

D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) No.687/2013.

State of Rajasthan & ORS.versus Mohammed Usman (with two similar matteRs.1 55 D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) No.687/2013.

State of Rajasthan & ORS.versus Mohammed Usman 60 D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) No.915/2013.

State of Rajasthan & ORS.versus Mukesh Kumar 61 D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) No.916/2013.

State of Rajasthan & ORS.versus Satpal Madan .Date of Order :: 25th October 2013.

HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Dr.

Sachin Acharya ].Mr.Vijay Purohit ]., for the appellants.

<><><> BY THE COURT: Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants in these three similar nature intra-court appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan and its officers in the Excise Department and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find even a wee bit of reason to consider interference.

In these appeals, the appellants seek to question the similar nature orders dated 03.05.2013, as passed in CWP Nos.273/2013, 265/2013, and 274/2013 respectively, whereby, the learned Single Judge of this Court has admitted the respective writ petitions preferred by the licencees of the liquor shops, on their grievance against the demand of enhanced license fees, which was raised after an alleged survey about location; and has confirmed the interim orders dated 10.01.2013 whereby, recovery of the impugned demand was ordered to remain stayed.

This Court has, time and again, observed that the question of D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) No.687/2013.

State of Rajasthan & ORS.versus Mohammed Usman (with two similar matteRs.2 granting or refusing the interim relief is essentially within the domain and jurisdiction of the learned Single of the Court dealing with the matter; and, ordinarily, such exercise of jurisdiction does not call for interference in intra-court appeal unless there be a strong case of substantial failure of justice.

In the present matteRs.where the impugned demands remain seriously in dispute and the learned Single Judge, after having heard both the parties, found the writ petitions preferred by the licencees worth consideration; and has admitted the same for hearing; and has confirmed the interim orders operating since 10.01.2013 to last until the disposal of writ petitions, the exercise of jurisdiction remains unexceptionable.

No case for interference being made out, the appeals fail and are, therefore, dismissed summarily.

(P.K.LOHRA).J.

(DINESH MAHESHWARI).J.

/Mohan/

Same Court & Year Rajasthan Jodhpur · 2013 Same Parties State of Raj. and ors vs Mohammed Usman Same Subject Land Acquisition