Patna Court May 1996 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.
Miss Asha Kumari Vs. the Rajendra Agricultural University and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-02-1996
J.N. Dubey, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to admit her in M.Sc. (Biochemistry) Course 1995-97 session in the Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, Pusa (for short 'the University'). 2. The case of the petitioner is that on 12-8-1995 respondents invited applications in the prescribed form for admission in Post-Graduate courses of the University in different disciplines indicating choice of three subjects. Along with the prescribed form the candidates were also provided with a Prospectus containing criteria for admission to the various Post-Graduate Courses. The petitioner who possesses B.Sc. (Honours) degree in Chemistry applied for admission in M.Sc. (Biochemistry). On'7-12-1995 the respondents published a list of candidates, who were admitted in M.Sc. (Biochemistry), which did not contain the name of the petitioner. According to the petitioner she was legally entitled for admission in M.Sc. (Biochemistry) b...
Rakesh Sharma Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-01-1996
R.N. Sahay, J.1. A direct conflict between two seats of decisions of this Court on the interpretation of the Presidential Order issued under Article 342 of the Constitution has necessitated this reference to Full Bench. The significant question for consideration is as to whether the members of 'Lohar' caste in the State of Bihar, who are admittedly 'backward class' have right to claim the privileges available to the members of 'scheduled tribe' by virtue of the Presidential Order.2. Article 366(25) defines 'Schedule Tribe'- which means:'such tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are deemed under Article 342 to be Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of this Constitution.' Under Article 342 of the Constitution of India it is provided as follows:Scheduled Tribes: 1. The President may with respect of any State or Union territory and where it is a State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification specify the tri...
State of Bihar Vs. Smt. Sharda Devi
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-01-1996
R.N. Sahay, J.1. This litigation has a chequered history and the facts of the case are rather involved and hence has to be narrated with sufficient clarity.2. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal arise out of a proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. In pursuance of a declaration dated 16.2.1982 (Ext. 7) 36.86 acres of land (out of 43.92 acres) bearing plot Nos. 4/5 and 10 appertaining to khata No. 151 of village Phusari in the district of Lohardaga, was acquired for a project called Phulsari Sapahi Nala'. The lands of khata No. 151 under khewat No. 2/9 R.S. Plot Nos. 4, 5 and 10 were recorded under the revisional survey record of rights as 'gair majarua malik'. But according to the appellant-State of Bihar, the aforesaid land vested in the State of Bihar as per notification dated 18.8.V995 (Ext. M). Therefore, the State claimed that it was entitled to get compensation for the lands acquired under Ext. 7.3. The case of the respondent was that before vesting of ...
Mathura Singh Vs. Tetali Dom and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-01-1996
R.N. Sahay, J.1. This second appeal has been referred to Full Bench under Rule I, Chapter V of the Patna High Court Rules for a decision whether the decision of this Court in Budhni Maintain v. Gobardhan Bhogta reported in 1984 BLT 226 whereby Section 46(1) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act was declared ultra vires under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, is a right decision and if the answer is in the affirmative, whether the law declared in the said decision still holds valid after deletion of Article 19(1)(f) from the list of fundamental rights by virtue of 44th Amendment of the Constitution.2. The appellant herein, Mathura Singh, filed the suit No. 26 of 1982 out of which this appeal arises, for a declaration that he was the rightful owner of the suit land and for a decree for confirmation of this possession. One of the issues in the suit was whether purchase of the suit land by the plaintiff-appellant form defendant was in violation of Section 46(1) of the C.N.T. Act which provid...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›