Rajasthan Court December 1952 Judgments
Khandari Babu Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur Region, Udaipu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Raj78
Ranawat, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one Khandari Babu, son of Kilu Mal, of Kotah city, against the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur Region, and Messrs. Ratan Singh Awat Ram.2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is that he owns bus No. RJL 529, and holds a permit for plying it on Kotah-Deikhera-Khanpur route in Kotah and Jhalawar districts granted to him by the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur Region, that the petitioner, after getting his permit for plying stage carriage, spent about Rs. 1200/- in the repairing of the route in order to make it motorable, that the Regional Transport Authority Udaipur Region, in complete disregard of the provisions of Section 62, Motor Vehicles Act, on 3-10-1952 granted a temporary permit to Messrs. Ratan Singh Awat Ram, who are opposite party No. 2, which is to remain valid up to 31-12-1952, that the temporary permit of opposite party No. 2 is practically for the same route as that of the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Jyoti Prasad Vs. Government of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj151
Ranawat, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one Jyoti Prasad against the Government of Rajasthan, Chiranjilal, Surajmal, Sardar & Jeetmal.2. The brief facts of the case, which have been stated by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was held to be a Khatedar tenant by Nizamat Hindaun, on 16-5-1942, relating to plots Khasra Nos. 4 to 19, 22 to 28 and 45 in village Jatwara, Tehsil Hindaun, instead of a mortgagee, and the names of Loharia, Ganga-kishan, Bishna and Zorawar were ordered to be deleted as mortgagors from the Parcha Chakbadi by way of punishment for having illegally mortgaged the disputed land. Since then the petitioner continued in possession of those plots of land as a Khatedar tenant. In the revision settlement of Samvat 2000, Loharia, Chiranji, Bishna, and Zorawar filed objections against the petitioner that they were the Khatedar tenants relating to these plots of land, but the objections were rejected finally by the Jaipur Bo...
Tag this Judgment!Lalsingh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj173
Wanchoo, C.J.1. Theses are two connected writ applications. No. 65 is by Lalsingh & others who are Jagirdars. No. 66 is by Pema & others who are tenants of the same land. The land has been taken possession of by a private limited company which is the property of the President of India, and the State of Rajasthan has given possession to the Company. The present applications are with respect to agricultural holdings Nos. 1 to 26 in village Kavas also known as Madpura and Sar-ka-Par.2. As the points raised in the two applications are the same, we propose to dispose them of by one judgment.3. The case of the applicants' is that the Rajasthan Government started acquisition proceedings of the land in dispute under the Marwar Land Acquisition Act of 1947. They continued these proceedings from February 1952, to May 1952. Then suddenly on 11-6-1952 possession was taken of the land in dispute under the orders and the personal supervision of the Collector of Barmer in which district the land lies...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj170
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ, direction or order in the nature of prohibition forbidding the opposite parties, namely the State of Rajasthan, and the Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan, from recovering from the applicant the cost of maintenance of additional police force at Nanan, and from taking possession of the applicant's jagir for that purpose. 2. The case put forward by the applicant is this: He is the jagirdar of village Nanan in Tahsil Bilara. In 1948, the Dhani of one Prabhudayal was ransacked by dacoits. Thereafter punitive police force was quartered in village Nanan under the orders of the Chief Secretary to. the Administrator Jodhpur, dated 28-4-1949, on the ground that Nanan was in a disturbed state. This police force remained in the village from May, 1949 to January, 1950, and the cost of maintaining this additional force for nine months came to Rs. 4,761/147-. The Tahsildar of Bilara was ordered...
Tag this Judgment!Kotah Transport Ltd. Vs. Regional Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Raj33
Ranawat, J.1. These are seven applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In all these cases the facts are similar and the points raised are also the same. They are therefore being dealt with together. The petitioner in all these cases is Kotah Transport Limited, Kotah, and they are all directed against the Regional Transport Authority but there are some other persons also who have been impleaded as the opposite parties and they are different in each case. In Writ Application No. 591 Siraj Ahrnad has been made opposite party 2. In Writ Application No. 592 National Motors, Kotah, has been impleaded as opposite party 2. In Writ Application No. 593 'Messrs. Nazir Ahmad Abdul Majid are opposite party 2. In Writ Petition No. 595 Mohammad Bux Mistri has been impleaded as, opp: party 2. In Writ Application No. 596 Messrs. Rampratap Manakchand, & Messrs. Awatram Ratansingh are opposite parties 2 & 3, In Writ Petition No. 597 Messrs. Anandilal Badrilal are opposite party 2. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Jhunta and anr. Vs. Board of Revenue
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Raj30
Dave, J.1. This is an application by two persons Jhunta and Mahadev under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts leading to this application are that on 10-8-1950, opposite party 2 Balu and his sou No. 3 Ram Nath presented an application under Section 7, Rajasthan (protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 before the Anti Ejectment Officer, i.e., the Assistant Collector Sawai Jaipur. It was alleged by them that petitioner 2 in this case Maha-deva was a 'khatedar' tenant of sixteen fields in the village Talpatti, Tehsil Sawai Jaipur, that out of those sixteen 'khasra' Numbers, five fields numbering 77, 127, 129, 289 and 292 were in their sole cultivatory possession as sub-tenants from the 'Smt. Year 1997, while in the remaining eleven fields numbering 31, 290, 291, 294, 296, 297, 300, 426, 441, 442 and 443 they were co-tenants of petitioner 1 Jhunta, that with the assistance of the petitioners Jhunta and Mahadeva, four persons namely Lalu, Mahadeva, Govinda and Kana had disp...
Tag this Judgment!Rodu Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj155
Dave, J.1. This is an application by one Rodu under Art, 226 of the Constitution of India and arises in the following circumstances.2. On 10-10-1950, the opposite party 2 Chotu filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amber, under Section 7, Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949. It was stated by him that Rodu who is the petitioner in this Court was a 'Khatedar' tenant of sixteen bigha of land situated at the well Sejawali in village Bansa, Kushalpura, that he has sub-let it for cultivation to him (Chotu) and his brother Chuna and that they were cultivating it from the 'Smt.* year 2003. It was alleged that Rodu along with others dispossessed him from that land and so he prayed for re-instatement. Rodu contested this application but on 24-7-1951 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amber decided the case in Chotu's favour. Rodu filed a revision application against this order before the Board of Revenue for Rajagthan at Jaipur, but since it was dismissed, he has filed t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Singh and ors. Vs. S.D.M., Khetri
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Raj202
Dave, J.1. These are fifteen applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The questions of law involved in them are common; the facts are also similar : they have been heard on one date, and, therefore they are decided together.2. In the Sub-division of Khetri, District Jhun-jhunu, there are two villages called Chinchdoliand Saffragwar. Twelve of the applications relate to agricultural lands situated in the village Chinchdoli and the remaining three to those situated in the village Saffragwar. On 7-7-1952, Shri Shambhudayal was the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Khetri while on 14-7-1952 and 17-7-1952 Shri B. C. Mukerjee was the Sub Divisional Magistrate in his place. Twelve Of the present petitions have been filed to challenge the validity of the orders passed by Shri Shambhudayal on 7-7-1952 while the remaining three are directed against the orders of Shri B. C. Mukerjee passed. on the 14th and 17th July, 1952. Shri Shambhudayal is, therefore, opposite party No. 1 in tw...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›