Ajij Khan and ors. Vs. State and ors

Ajij Khan and ors. vs State and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Jodhpur Decided Oct 10, 2011

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/921937

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/921937
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided On: Oct 10, 2011
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

C-101, Vasundhara Apartments, Dwarka, New Delhi was purchased by the defendant in the name of the plaintiff and for her benefit. Regarding property at L-4, Connaught Place, New Delhi, it is alleged that the plaintiff has no right in the aforesaid property which belongs to the defendant. Since the defendant is willin...

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ajij Khan and ors.

Respondent

State and ors

Excerpt

c-101, vasundhara apartments, dwarka, new delhi was purchased by the defendant in the name of the plaintiff and for her benefit. regarding property at l-4, connaught place, new delhi, it is alleged that the plaintiff has no right in the aforesaid property which belongs to the defendant. since the defendant is willing to give half of the rental income from the aforesaid house to the plaintiff after deducting the expenditure incurred on its upkeep and maintenance, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of rendition of accounts with respect to the rental income earned by the defendant from h.no.670, ajit singh nagar mohali phase-ii, punjab. .....board of revenue in relation to the petitioners cannot be said to be unjustified or suffering2from any jurisdictional error. therefore, no case for interference in the order passed by the board of revenue at the instance of the petitioners is made out. accordingly, this writ petition (cwp no.581/2011) stands rejected. however, having regard to the averments taken in the other writ petition i.e., cwp no.6969/2011 wherein it is alleged that the proceedings in the ceiling case against the private respondents after remand have not been concluded yet; and the representation as made by the petitioners has also not been decided by the collector, let the notices be issued to the respondents to show cause as to why this writ petition (cwp no.6969/2011) be not admitted. a copy of this order be placed on the record of cwp no.581/2011. (dinesh maheshwari), j. cpgoyal/-384 s.b. civil writ petition no.581/2011 ajiz khan & ors. vs state of rajasthan & ors. date of order: 10th october 2011 hon'ble mr. justice dinesh maheshwari mr. j.r. beniwal, sr. advocate with dr. sachin acharya and mr. b.l. choudhary, for the petitioners. vide common order made in s.b. civil writ petition no.6969/2011 : ajiz khan & ors. v. state of rajasthan & ors.(dinesh maheshwari), j. cpgoyal/-

Full Judgment

83 & 84 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6969/2011 Ajiz Khan & Ors. vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.581/2011 Ajiz Khan & Ors. vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER: 10th October 2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. J.R. Beniwal, Sr. Advocate with Dr. Sachin Acharya and Mr. B.L. Choudhary, for the petitioners. These two writ petitions, filed by the same set of petitioners, have been taken up for consideration together; and shall be governed by this common order. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record in these two writ petitions, so far CWP No.581/2011 in regard to the order dated 09.06.1999 as passed by the Board of Revenue in the reference proceedings is concerned, it is noticed that looking to the subject matter of the reference proceedings relating to the dispute between the State Government and the non-applicants, the Board of Revenue held that the rights sought to be claimed by the applicants (the present petitioners) could only be determined in separate

proceedings but not in the reference proceedings where the only question to be determined and adjudicated was in relation to the dispute about the alteration of the revenue record. The observations was made by the Board of Revenue in relation to the petitioners cannot be said to be unjustified or suffering

from any jurisdictional error. Therefore, no case for interference in the order passed by the Board of Revenue at the instance of the petitioners is made out. Accordingly, this writ petition (CWP No.581/2011) stands rejected. However, having regard to the averments taken in the other writ petition i.e., CWP No.6969/2011 wherein it is alleged that the proceedings in the ceiling case against the private respondents after remand have not been concluded yet; and the representation as made by the petitioners has also not been decided by the Collector, let the notices be issued to the respondents to show cause as to why this writ petition (CWP No.6969/2011) be not admitted. A copy of this order be placed on the record of CWP No.581/2011. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. cpgoyal/-

84 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.581/2011 Ajiz Khan & Ors. vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER: 10th October 2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. J.R. Beniwal, Sr. Advocate with Dr. Sachin Acharya and Mr. B.L. Choudhary, for the petitioners. Vide common order made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6969/2011 : Ajiz Khan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. cpgoyal/-

Same Court & Year Rajasthan Jodhpur · 2011 Same Parties Ajij Khan and ors. vs State and ors Same Subject Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition