Rajasthan Court January 1954 Judgments
inder Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Raj185
Sharma, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Sardar inder Singh and Krishi Sahkarini Samiti, Bhimnagar, through its Secretary, Satya Pal Singh, against the State of Rajasthan, the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, the Anti Ejectment Officer, Bayana, and 23 other respondents, who were applicants before the Anti Ejectment Officer in 23 different cases under Section 7, Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 (NO. IX Of 1949). 2. The petitioners' case is that the petitioner No. 1 leased the whole of his land 582 bighas to the petitioner No. 2 for a period of 10 years in connection with the 'GROW MORE FOOD CAMPAIGN', and got the patta registered before the Tehsildar, Bayana, on 1-3-1952, and the possession of the land was transferred by the petitioner No. 1 to the petitioner No. 2 by the date of registration of the patta. The respondents Nos. 4 to 26 filed separate applications in the Court of S.D.O., Bayana, under Section 7, Rajasthan (Protection ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Ajmer Vs. Tek Chand Tejwani
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1954
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1014
Nigam, J.C.1. Tele Chand Tejwani was prosecuted of an offence under Section 188, I. P. C., for breach of an order under Section 144, Criminal P. C. The learned Magistrate found him guilty and sentenced him to simple imprisonment till the rising of the court. Against his conviction and sentence, the accused filed an appeal which was disposed of toy the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the order under Section 144, Criminal P. C. was bad in law and, therefore, the accused was entitled to an acquittal. Now the state of Ajmer, has come up in appeal against that order of acquittal. In the appeal, I have heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the accused respondent.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relying on - 'D. V. Belvi v. Emperor' AIR 1931 Bom 325 (A) and - 'Sat Narain v. Emperor' AIR 1939 All 748 (B) held that an order prohibiting the public generally from taking part in a procession within the w...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Raj131
Wanchoo, C.J.1. This is a reference by a Division Bench of this Court, and the following two questions have been referred to a Pull Bench for reply:'1. Whether the provisions of Section 8(1)(c)(ii)(iii) & (iv) read with Section 12, Court of Wards Act, are inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (5) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the provision of Section 9(3), Court of Wards Act, of 1951 is repugnant to Article 19(1)(f) and (5) of the Constitution of India?' 2. The facts, which have led to this reference, may be briefly narrated. The applicant Rao Bhagwatsingh is the jagirdar of Duni. The Government is intending to take action under Section 8(1) (c) of the Court of Wards Act, 1951, for declaring the applicant incapable of managing or unfitted to manage his estate, and in that connection the Collector of Jaipur has been directed to make an enquiry under Section 9(1) of the Act into the circumstances of the applicant, and the extent of his indebtedness.The applic...
Tag this Judgment!Kishen Lal L.R. of Mohanlal Vs. Sohanlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Raj138
Modi, J. 1. The questions referred to the Full Bench are as follows:(1) What is the interpretation to be put on the Exception to Rule 17 of the Ijlas-i-Khas Rules of 1939, and whether it is necessary that there should be an issue as to the nature of the tenure before the exception applies and the conditions contained in Clause (a) of Rule 17 can be waived, and whether the decision in -- 'Hukum Singh v. Ehanwar Singh', AIR 1950 Raj 39 (A) is correct? (2) Is the decision in -- 'Udaimal v. Hastimal', AIR 1952 Raj 161 (B) correct in view of the fact that Order 45, and particularly Order 45, Rule 3, were not in force in the former State of Jodhpur, and whether in view of these facts it is open to a party, to whom leave has been granted, to urge other grounds in support of the leave than those on which leave was granted to him by the Chief Court? 2. The facts of the two connected cases out of which this reference has arisen may be stated very shortly for our present purposes. The dispute rel...
Tag this Judgment!Barkatali Vs. Custodian General of Evacuee Property of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Raj214
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. This is an application by Barkatali under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ in connection ' with proceedings under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (No. 31 of 1950) (hereinafter called the Act).2. The case of the applicant is that he received notice, dated 9-9-1950, from the Assistant Custodian, Pali, under Sections 7 of the Act requiring him to appear in person in the office of the Assistant Custodian at 10 A. M., failing which the case would be decided against him. The applicant put in appearance on the date fixed. Thereafter, the case was postponed and was dealt with by one Mr. M. R. Dhariwal who is Naib Tahsildar. This gentleman declared by an order, dated 24-10-1950, certain share in the property to be evacuee property. The applicant went in appeal to the Custodian Rajasthan.This appeal was partly allowed, and the Custodian declared one-eighth share of Niaz Ali, who was held to be an evacuee, to be evacuee property. But this related to ...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Kalyan Singh and anr. Vs. Bhur Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Raj182
Wanchoo, C.J. 1. These are two connected applications challenging the validity of the Jaipur Hitkarni Committee Rules. 2. These Rules, which appeared in the Jaipur Government Gazette, dated 15-8-1945 provided for the appointment of what are called Hitkarni Committees for each district of the former State of Jaipur. This committee was given the power of fixing maintenance allowance of dependents of state grantees. It appears that before these rules came into force maintenance allowance of dependants of state grantees was fixed in case of dispute through a suit. These suits used to be filed in the Civil Courts. But a notification was published in the Jaipur Gazette of 15-6-1945, which provided that all suits against a state grantee by any chhutbhiya, maji, thakurani etc. for the grant of maintenance allowance or khangi payable from the income of a state grant shall be exclusively triable by revenue courts, and all pending suits of this nature shall be transferred by the civil courts to t...
Tag this Judgment!Madhosingh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Raj197
Wanchoo, C.J.1. These are connected applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the Rajasthan Agricultural Rents Control Act (No. XIX) of 1952.2. The Act was passed on 14-5-1952, and was enforced in the Districts of Bharatpur and Alwar on 16-5-1952. The main contentions of the applicants are that the Act was void in view of Article 13 of the Constitution because (1) it offends Article 14, and (2) is not a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right conferred on the applicants by Article 19(1)(f), and cannot therefore be saved by Article 19(5) of the Constitution.3. The applications have been opposed by the State, and it is contended that the Act is not hit by Article 14, and is saved by Article 19(5) as a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right conferred by Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.4. The main argument, however has been confined to Article 14 & is directed against section 1 (3) of the Act. It may be mentioned that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Hukum Singh Milap Singh Vs. State of Ajmer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1954
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1232
ORDERNigam, J.C.1. Hukam Singh was acquitted by this Court of a charge under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and other offences. An appeal against that acquittal has been admitted by the Hon'ble supreme Court. An application under Order 45, Rule 5, and Order 6, Rule 1, of the Supreme Court Rules read with Article 142(1) and (2) of the Constitution was made praying for the issue of direction to this Court to get Hukam Singh arrested and detained or released on bail. On 23-12-1953, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to direct as follows:The Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer will issue a warrant directing the respondent to be brought before the appropriate Court either to be detained pending the disposal of the appeal in this Court or to be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of such Court.2. Thereupon a warrant was issued by this Court on 25-12-1953 directing the arrest of the said Hukam Singh and his production before the District Magistrate, Ajmer. Hukam Singh, it appears, was arrested on 26-1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›