Madhya Pradesh Court May 2013 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.
Moolchand Vs. Collector of District Narsinghpur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :12629. of 2010 Moolchand and others - V/s - State of MP & Collector, District, Narsinghpur. Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri P.N.Das, counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, PL, for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.ORDER 06/05/2013 Petitioners claim to be in possession of certain agricultural land, which was given to their ancestors much prior to coming into force of the M P Land Revenue Code, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Code).It is stated that in the settlement process that was conducted sometime in the year 1923-1924, the then Zamindars / Malgujars of the land gave the land to the ancestors of the petitioneRs.as they were working as Kotwars and since then the petitioners are in possession of ...
Sangita Vs. Board of Secondary Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
Writ Petition No.7453/2012 6.5.2013 Shri Manot Chansoriya, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri Mahendra Pateriya, Advocate for the respondents. The petitioners are students of Diploma of Education Course. They have already passed fiRs.year and they intended to appear in the second year examination. But since their examination forms were not submitted within the stipulated period, respondent no.1 Board of Secondary Education declined to accept the same. Aggrieved, the petitioners rushed to this High Court by filing the present petition. A Division Bench by an interim order dated 18.5.2012 directed the respondents to allow the petitioners to appear in the supplementary examination for D.Ed. second year. In compliance of the interim order all the petitioners have been allowed to appear in the D.Ed. second year examination. It is not disputed by the respondents that petitioners were eligible to appear in the examination. Since the petitioners were admittedly eligible to appear in the second ...
Manmeet Singh Vs. the Project Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
Writ Petition No ::1374. / 2011 Manmeet Singh versus The Project Officer, NHA and others 06.05.2013. Shri Harpreet Ruprah for the petitioner. Shri Rajneesh Upadhyaya for respondent No.1. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Challenging the award of compensation made in the matter of acquisition of land of the petitioner under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).petitioner has filed this writ petition, and challenge is made to the orders passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the award passed by the Arbitrator exercising jurisdiction under section 3-G(5) of the Act. Challenge to the award of the arbitrator is made mainly on the ground that the compensation has been assessed and paid to the petitioner treating the land to be an un-irrigated and non- agricultural land whereas the land in question was an irrigated agricultural land and necessary orders of diversion of the land for this purpose were already available. Havi...
Mahmood Khan Vs. M.P.Wakf Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
Civil Revision No.200/2009 06-05-2013 Ms.Preeti Khanna, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri T.S.Ruprah, learned senior counsel with Shri Harpreet Ruprah, for respondent No.6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on I.A.No.4068/2013 for modification of order dated 8-6-2009. The application is not opposed by the learned counsel for the applicants, who states that a typographical mistake has occurred in the order dated 8-6-2009 and instead of Survey No.160, Survey No.107 has been typed. As both the parties agree to the said mistake, the order dated 8-6-2009 is accordingly modified and it is directed that in place of Survey No.107., Survey No.160. be read in the order dated 8-6-2009. With the aforesaid modification I.A.No.4068/2013 stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) mct Judge...
A.K. Xess Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P. No. 3217 of 2013 6.5.2013 Shri Amit Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Government Advocate for respondent State of M.P.Heard. This petition was initially directed against the alleged arbitrary action of the respondents in not granting regular salary and a direction for release of regular salary on the anvil that though suspended vide order dated 13.3.2012 but since no charge sheet was served within 45 days, the suspension was deemed to be revoked as per Rule 9 (5) (a) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and that the petitioner, an Assistant Development Extension Officer, gave his joining on 28.4.2012 and though given the joining, the salary was, however, not disbursed. That, on 6.3.2013 the respondents were called upon as to why the petitioner is not being paid t...
Shehnaz Bano Vs. Aukaf E Shaahi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P. No. 6837 of 2013 6.5.2013 Shri Imtiaz Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. Raising a grievance that the petitioner has No. been afforded a reasonable opportunity to file a written statement/ reply in a proceeding initiated under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995; petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashment of orders Annexure P1A and P1B; (whereby the right to file written statement/reply has been closed). And direction to the Secretary, AukaafeShaahi, to give the petitioner opportunity to file written statement/reply. Proceedings for eviction of the petitioner from Wakf Property emanates from the order dated 19.10.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 13895/2008 (M.P. Hanfi v. The State of M.P. and others).Said writ petition was a Public Interest Litigation seeking direction for removal of encroachment over 40 acres of Wakf Property; wherein, the Division Bench...
Krishna Prasad Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P.No.7399/2013 06/05/2013 Shri Himanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Certain orders were passed by Respondent No.2 in Revenue Case No.67A-6A/92-93 on 19.8.1993 with regard to correction of the Revenue record and inserting the name of the petitioner in the revenue record. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the orders have been passed, Respondent Nos.2 & 3 have not taken any action with regard to incorporating the name of the petitioner in the revenue record and the representation in this regard filed by the petitioner having been ignored, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Keeping in view the grievance of the petitioner, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with relevant documents before Respondent No.1 Collector of the district concerned and Respondent No.2 Tehsildar concerned, both these authorities shall take note of the order passed and direction for correction of the revenue recor...
Javed Ali Vs. Aukaf E Shaahi
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P. No. 6876 of 2013 6.5.2013 Shri Imtiaz Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. Raising a grievance that the petitioner has No. been afforded a reasonable opportunity to file a written statement/ reply in a proceeding initiated under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995; petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashment of orders Annexure P1A and P1B; (whereby the right to file written statement/reply has been closed). And direction to the Secretary, AukaafeShaahi, to give the petitioner opportunity to file written statement/reply. Proceedings for eviction of the petitioner from Wakf Property emanates from the order dated 19.10.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 13895/2008 (M.P. Hanfi v. The State of M.P. and others).Said writ petition was a Public Interest Litigation seeking direction for removal of encroachment over 40 acres of Wakf Property; wherein, the Division Bench...
Harihar Prasad Urmalia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
W.P.No.8269/2013 6/5/2013: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance notice. The dispute in question pertains to election and office bears of Jabalpur District Pensioners Association. Even though various grounds are raised in the writ petition, record indicates that the dispute is pending consideration before respondent No.2 Registrar, Firms and Societies and application for staying the proposed election Annexure P/8 is also pending before the said Registrar. That being so, for the present, without adverting to consider the rival contentions on merit, it is thought appropriate to direct respondent No.2 either to decide the dispute in accordance to merit or to decide the application for stay Annexure P/8 filed by the petitioner within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The application for stay shall be decided after hearing all concern. With the aforesai...
Smt. Kalpana Sorte Vs. Union of India
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-06-2013
Writ Petition No.4517/2013 6.5.2013 Shri Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 17.8.2012, Annexure P1, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, whereby it finally disposed of the petitioners Original Application No.654/2009 with the following direction. The official respondents in their reply have taken the plea that the case of the family pension will be decided after the decision of the Family Court of Allahabad. The divorce case pending before the Family Court, Allahabad has since been dismissed vide their order dated 25.4.2011 and now, as admitted in their reply, the office respondents have to decide the case of family pension. In these circumstances, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to decide the case of family pension and other terminal benefits and make payment regarding them within a period of 120 days from the date of issuing of this order to the applicant and/or res...
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »