Jammu and Kashmir Court May 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mir G.R. Wali Vs. State and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: May-31-2007
Reported in: AIR2008J& K11,2007(2)JKJ534
Y.P. Nargotra, J.1. This letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 25-5-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in OWP No. 365/2007 filed by respondent No. 9 Dr. Nishu whereby the selection of the appellant Dr. Mir G R Wali for PG Diploma Course in Dermatology, in Govt. Medical College, Jammu in reserved category, has been quashed.2. Brief narration of the relevant facts is that pursuant to the Notification issued by the J&K; Board of Professional Entrance Examination (hereinafter called BPEE) an entrance examination of the candidates was conducted in which the merit obtained by the writ petitioner /respondent No. 9, the appellant and private respondents No. 6 to 8 as per the select list was as follows:---------------------------------------------------------------------S.No. 8- Writ Petitioner Dr. Nishu 202 marks---------------------------------------------------------------------S.No. 10- Resp.No.6 Dr. Nuzha-tun-Nissa 202 marks---------------------------...
Abdul Majid Dar Vs. State of J and K and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: May-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)JKJ179
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.1. Petitioner has pleaded in this petition that he is owner of land measuring 1 kanal and 6 marlas falling under survey No. 112 situate at Humhama, Budgam but the respondents have acquired only 3/4th of the land out of the said land which is against the mandate of Section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1934 A.D (for short the Act). He has accordingly prayed that the respondents be directed to either acquire the entire land or else leave it out of acquisition.2. Respondents have filed reply in which they have resisted the petition on various counts.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. It is made clear that any finding returned hereinafter shall not be construed to be held that the petitioner is declared owner of the said land. Whether he is owner or not and entitled to any compensation or not are the questions to be determined by the Collector. However, crux of the entire controversy is whether the respondents are under a legal obligation to acquire entire l...
Noor Mohammad Shah and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: May-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)JKJ249
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.1. Petitioners have challenged communications bearing Nos. SDA/DLM/5929 dated 29.03.2005 and SDA/DLM dated 24.01.2006-annexures F and G issued by respondent No. 3 and have sought writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to make reference in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (1934 A.D.), for short Act, on the following grounds.2. It is averred that Srinagar Development Authority-SDA acquired land in the year 1997. The father of the petitioners, namely, Mohammad Ramzan Shah (Shala) received the compensation amount under protest but he could not file petition for making reference because he met with an accident and was bed ridden and succumbed to injuries on 12th June, 1998. Petitioners could not file the application for making reference for the reasons that they were minors and ultimately petitioner No. 1 on attaining majority filed application for making reference which came to be rejected vide communication dated 24.01.2006-an-nexure-G. Petit...
Abdul Ahad Dar Vs. Rasool Dar and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: May-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)JKJ282
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.1. Challenge in this Civil Second Appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 9th October, 2004 delivered by District Judge, Budgam, in Civil First Appeal titled Ahad Dar v. Rasool Dar and Ors. and also to the order dated 3rd September, 2005 passed in review petition.2. Plaintiffs-Karim Dar and Rasool Dar sons of Gaffar Dar filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit property comprising of land measuring 14 kanals 13 marlas situated at Humhama Tehsil and District Budgam on the grounds Gaffar Dar died leaving behind three sons i.e. plaintiffs and one Mohammad Dar. Mohammad Dar had died issueless and his share was inherited by Mst. Jani his widow who too died and that share reverted to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are thus only heirs/successors of Gaffar Dar. The defendants-appellant and respondents 7 to 17 herein have no right, title or claim over the suit property but are without any rhyme or reason interfering into their possession....
Abdul Rashid and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)JKJ550
Bashir A. Kirmani, J.1. On 16.08.1997 Abdul Hamid Malik son of Abdul Ahad Malik of Badargund-Ganderbal instituted a report in concerned Police Station that his brother namely Ghulam Nabi Malik had been lifted by accused Irshad Ahmad Sofi, Mohmmad Yasin Sofi and Mst. Khati on 21.06.1977 sic 1997 with help of local army unit while they were accompanied by an unknown person and till 16.08.1997 he did not get any clue regarding whereabouts of his aforesaid brother. Meanwhile on 22.06.1997 while he had gone to police station, Ganderbal he was prevented by accused Abdul Rashid Sofi constable from lodging the FIR by physically assaulting him, and asking him to go back as he would manage release of his lifted brother which did not happen whereupon he filed complaints before IGP, DIG, SSP and Dy. Commissioner of Srinagar district, one of which was endorsed to concerned SDPO also, but still then nothing happened and he started searching for his brother during which he came in contact with accuse...
Shakeel Ahmad Shal Vs. State of J and K and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)JKJ104
Nirmal Singh, J.1. Petitioner was serving as Constable in the Jammu and Kashmir Armed Police. Vide impugned order No. Home-91 (ISA) of 1995 dt. 20th of March'95, he has been dismissed from service by invoking the provisions of Section 126 Sub-section 2 Clause (c) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been terminated from service without holding an enquiry against him. It is contended that even the impugned order has not been served upon the petitioner.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that before invoking the aforesaid provisions the competent authority has to apply its mind and to hold that it is not in the interest of public or in the State to hold an enquiry nor it is possible due to threat to the security of the State. He further contended that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the Constitutional provisions. In support of his submission he has relie...
Nishu Vs. State of J and K and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)JKJ358
Nirmal Singh, J.1. A short but important question of law has been raised in this petition regarding interpretation and application of Rule 17 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005 (here-in-after called the rules). The said rule reads as under:17. Allotment of discipline etc.: A reserved category candidate, if selected against the Open Merit sent, may be considered for allotment of discipline/stream/college allocable to him in his respective category on the basis of his merit and preference. The resultant discipline stream/college in the Open Merit category shall be allotted to the served category candidate who gets selected consequent upon the reserved category' candidate getting selected in the Open Merit Category.2. A perusal of the above rule shows that if a reserved category candidate is selected against Open merit seat, he is to be considered for allotment of discipline/stream/college allocable to him in his respective category on the basis of his merit and preference. ...
Gulam Mohammad Dar Vs. State of J and K and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: May-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)JKJ543
Bashir A. Kirmani, J.1. Briefly stated, petitioner's case is that he was promoted as Head Assistant in respondent-department vide order No. PW -130 of 1981 dated 21.07.1981 and after having worked as such for all the intervening years he was asked to function as Section Officer till the post was filled up by concerned Promotion Committee. Grievance projected is that despite having been working as Section Officer till July 2006 the respondents were contemplating his replacement by promoting respondent No. 6 on the pretext that he had not passed the Secretariat Training Course even though said respondent was junior to him in the cadre. Accordingly, petitioner seeks quashment of the order communication purporting to have been issued by respondent No. 4 whereunder he has been held to be ineligible for promotion to the post of Section Officer for want of Secretariat Training Course.2. In their objections, while admitting petitioner's seniority the respondents have pleaded that in view of re...
Shafiq Ahmed Qadir Vs. State and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: May-18-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)JKJ521
Bashir A. Kirmani, J.1. Claiming to have been appointed as a Daily Rated Worker way back in 1988 and having participated in elections of 1996, the petitioner pleads that as such he was entitled to regularisation in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. Grievance projected is that, respondents have not regularised his services and accordingly he seeks a direction for the same.2. In their reply the respondents while admitting petitioner's engagement as casual/seasonal labourer since 1983 plead that since petitioner was not engaged as Daily Wager he would not be entitled to engagement in terms of SRO 64 of 1994, particularly because he did not seven years continuous service to his credit because his engagement was throughout punctuated with regular breaks. During course of their threshold submissions both counsel have reiterated the contents of their respective pleadings.3.I have heard learned Counsel and considered the matter. It appears that previously also the petitioner had agitated his case throu...
Ahmad Reshi Vs. State and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: May-18-2007
Reported in: AIR2008J& K5,2007(2)JKJ529
Bashir A. Kirmani, J. 1. On 3.6.1996 the respondent herein instituted suit No. 23/1995 before Munsiff, Tangmarg against petitioner herein seeking declaration that they were owners in possession of land measuring 5 kanals and 8 marlas situated in village Bonagam of Tehsil Tangmarg under survey Nos. 926,944,927, and 895 in equal shares which is shown to have been admitted by petitioner-defendant on the same date and his statement in support of admission recorded on 20.06.1995 alongwith that of his counsel, whereupon the trial court passed a declaratory decree as sought on 20.06.1997 itself. This decree appears to have been challenged by petitioner herein in the same court through a civil suit on 12.04.1997 for declaration of aforesaid decree as ineffective upon his proprietary and possessory rights regarding aforesaid land to the exclusion of respondent-defendants. One of the grounds pleaded was that aforesaid decree had been obtained by fraud and deception as he never presented any plea...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »