Rajasthan Court February 1980 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.
Madhupuri Vs. the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and Three ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)21
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Madhpuri a successful plaintiff in a revenue suit filed this writ application, with the prayer that a writ of certiorari be issued against the judgment of Baard of Revenue dated 28-2-74 and 16-3-73 may also be quashed by which the decree of the two lower courts was reversed.2. The revenue suit under Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was passed on the ground that petitioner is a Khetedar and the defendants are dying to interfere with his possession and, therefore, they must be restrained from interfering with his possession on the suit agricultural land. The basis of the right of Khatedari was allowed before sale by respondents to Kaloopuri, father of the plaintiff and delivery of possession of this agricultural land on Jeth sud 11 Smt. 2007 for Rs. 500 CO. Consequently. mutation proceedings and the entry in the mutetion in favour of the plaintiff's father dated 22-12-56 was relied upon. There was further mutation in favour of the plaintiff himself after the...
Madan Raj Dhariwal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)128
ORDERNo. Estt/3504 Dated the 30th November, 1973To;Shri Madan Raj Dhariwal,UDC Treasury Office,Jodhpur.WHEREAS Shri Madan Raj Dhariwai, UDC has completed 25 years of qualifying service.Now, therefore in pursuance of the delegation made under sub rule (2) of rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, vide Finance Department Order No. F. 1 (34) FD.A/Rules/62 dated 13-12 63 the undersigned hereby requires Shri Madan Raj Dhariwal, UDC by payment to him of three months pay and allowances In lieu of three months previous notice to retire from the service on the date of receipt of this order by him.A bank draft of the amount of Rs 1524/ on the SBB & J. Jalori Gate JU. in respect of three months pay and allowances in lieu of three months previous notice is enclosedEncl. as aboveSd/-(B.K Jutshl)Collector, Jodhpur2. Accerding to this notice, the Collector, Jodhpur. exercising the powers under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 In pursuance of delegation, directed that the said Madan ...
Umaram Vs. Revenue Appellate Authority and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)74
1. Umaram, an unsuccessful petitioner, has filed this special appeal against the judgment of single Judge of this Court by which his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer of writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 2-1-73 and 13-6-74 of the Executive Engineer, Gang Canal South Division, Sriganganagar aid the order dated 2-3-68 of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, passed in & reference made to it under Section 27 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act' hereafter was dismissed.2. In this appeal, the only point argued by Mr. Parekh, learned Counsel for the appellant is that the impugned orders in relation to the alteration in the water channel after an identical prayer for this alteration having been rejected earlier by the competent authorities under the Act was passed in judicial proceedings and in any case was of quasi judicial nature determining the rights of the parties and, therefore, since the above Act provides no...
Bhootaram Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)82a
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Patwari with effect from September 1, 1951. An order of compulsory retirement was passed vide order No. LR/Estt/5229 dated July 31,1978 by the Collector, Jalore under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1958 Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (which will hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, be referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The memorandum of appeal has been filed by the petitioner marked as Ex. 1 The Tribunal, by its order (Ex 3) dated June 13,1979, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying that the impugned order (Ex. 3) dated June 13, 1979 passed by the Tribunal, may be quashed, and that the petitioner may be reinstated on the post of Patwari with all consequential benefits as if the order of compulsory retirement had never been passed against the petitioner.2. I have heard Mr. M.R. Calla, learned Counse...
Municipal Council Vs. Parekh Automobiles
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN107
ORDERC.M. Lodha, C.J.1. The above three special, appeals under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinances 1949, arise, out of the judgment by M.L. Joshi, J. dated January 28, 1977, where by the 'learned Judge partly allowed civil writ petitions Nos. 17 and 21 of 1976, filed by M/s Parekh Automobiles and Sukh Sampat Raj respectively, against the Municipal Council, jodhpur, and restrained the Municipal Council from charging or realising octroi on the goods brought within the limits of the Municipal Council by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., but re exported by the said Corporation outside the Municipal limits Council their refile out lets for use and consumption outside the limits of the Municipal Council|. However, the prayer of the petitioners for refund of the octroi, already paid by them was-refused. Aggrieved by the direction' issued against in the Municipal Council has preferred appeals Nos. 9 and 13 of 1977. M/s Parekh Automobiles there in after to be referred to as the pet...
Mohan Raj Vs. the Assistant Commissioner
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)255
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Petitioner Mohan Raj claims himself to be owner of a plot of land situated in the bazar of village Knot, Tehsil Pali. He also claims possession. It is alleged that when ht started construction of a Pakka shop on the above land, non-petitioner no. 2 alleging himself to be a trustee of the temple Padamnathji and its properties filed an application to non-petitioner no. 1, Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Pali (SDO Pali), It was alleged by the petitioner that the land belongs to the temple of Padamnathji and the petitioner by making such construction wants to deprive the temple from the right to possess this land. The non-petitioner no. 1 on this application passed an order for maintenance of status quo on the said plot and serving notice on the petitioner. The petitioner contested the right of the non-petitioner no. 1 to pass any order and also the factual allegations but all the objections of the petitioner were rejected by non-petitioner no. 1 and the ad-interim stay...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›