Rajasthan Court November 1981 Judgments
Chimana Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)371
M.C. Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks to challenge the order of the Divisional Irrigation Officer, Hanumangarh Junction dated 13-6-1980. About one year and five months have passed. The petitioner's contention that he was not served with notice, is also disputed as an affidavit has been placed on record of Jawahar Singh to the effect that notice was given to Chimanaram and his thumb impression was put on the original notice. It may be stated that the ptitioner had a remedy of appeal before the Superintending Engineer against the order of Divisional Irrigation Officer. If the petitioner was not served with the notice he could have preferred an appeal on that basis after he had come to know of impugned order. Thus the petitioner had an alternative remedy. Besides that, the question of service of notice has become a disputed question of fact in which this court would not enter.3. In the above reasons the writ petition is dism...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN637
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. The seven petitioners along with a few others, out of whom five have already been arrested, are suspected miscreants of an incident said to have taken place in the intervening night of 17th and 18th September, 1981 at the 'Durgah' of Nimba Nimbdi. On the basis of the information lodged by Abdul Kayum on September 18, 1981, case under Sections 147, 148, 307, 326 and 325 read with 149 Indian Penal Code was registered. Abdul Rahim, one of the injured, succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the incident on September 21, 1981 and therefore, Section 302 Indian Penal Code was further added against the suspects It is alleged that on Thursday the 17th September, 1981 the complainant and others had gone to Nimba Nimbdi 'Durgah' and after 'Namaz' were preparing for 'Ibadat' when at about 11.00 P.M. about 20 or 25 persons, armed with axe, hammers, 'burchis' and 'halwanis', entered the 'Durgah' uttering 'Jai Bajrang Bali' and started beating those persons. The Muslims i...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Vs. Chunnilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj73
M.C. Jain, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant has been unsuccessful in both the courts below and his suit for redemption of mortgage of the agricultural land, has been dismissed.2. The plaintiff-appellant mortgaged his share of the agricultural land measuring 3 'bighas' and 5 'biswas' with the defendant-respondent, who is his brother for a sum of Rs. 700/- on 13-8-1962 through a registered mortgage deed. On the same day he also executed an agreement to sell Ex. P/2. The relevant portion of the agreement reads as under :--^^mldkseSus vkt 700 lkrlkS :i;s jgu j[k dj jftLVh djk nh tehu ij dCtk ns fn;k pwadh;g ekya vkdks bu gh :ih;s 700lkrlkS esa cspku dj ;g bdjkj djrk gwa fd ,d lkyckn vkidks cspku ukek fy[kk dj cSukek dha jftLVh djka nwxka oDr fy[kus cSukekvkils bl jgulqnk ds vykok :i;s ugha ywaxk-** The plaintiff, considering that his right to redeem subsists, despite execution ofagreement to sell, instituted a suit for redemption. The defendant inter alia pleaded that he had become the owner o...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Sube Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj115; 1981()WLN583
G.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,000/-, which has been decreed by both the courts.2. The plaintiffs case is that he had a licence for cutting the trees from his own land and he cut the trees. But, the Tehsildar, Karauli made a complaint and the wood and coal prepared was seized and auctioned for Rs. 2,015/-. The S. D. M. convicted him and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 800/- and forfeited the amount of Rs. 2,015/-, the price of wood and coal auctioned. In appeal, the conviction was set aside and the penalties were quashed.3. The State has come in appeal on the ground that firstly the forfeiture of coal and wood was not set aside, and the implication of setting aside the penalty was only the fine. This submission of the State has been repelled by both the Courts and rightly so, because, firstly when the offence is not proved and the plaintiff had a right to hold and dispose of the property consisting of wood and coal, the forfeitur...
Tag this Judgment!Milind Nikhare Vs. the Malviya Regional Engineering College Society an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj87; 1981()WLN424
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. A short but an important question of law is involved in this case.2. The petitioner alleged in the writ petition that his father was transferred from Bhopal (M. P.) to Jaipur (Rajasthan) in the month of July, 1976 and since then he is working here. The father of the petitioner is an employee of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission and he has to move about in different parts of the country as and when transferred. The petitioner passed AllIndia Senior School Certificate Examination in Science in 1981 from the Central School, Jaipur. The Senior School Certificate is based on 10+2 system and the petitioner passed the final year of this course. The petitioner belongs to the State of Maharashtra and has been recognised as a scheduled tribe under the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 issued by the Government of India. The petitioner applied for admission in 4 years Engineering Degree Course at the Malviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur, which is one of the Re...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwanath Vs. Dhanraj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj66
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal under Section 100, C. P. C. against the judgment and decree dated August 13, 1970 of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhilwara. The Munsif, Gangapur by his judgment dated Sep. 12, 1969 decreed the plaintiff's suit for Rs. 1520/- consisting of Rs. 1290/- as principal and Rs. 230/- as interest with costs against the defendant-appellant. The defendant-appellant preferred an appeal on October 22, 1969. The learned Senior Civil Judge, by the impugned order dated August 13, 1970, dismissed the appeal holding it to be barred by time. Hence, defendant-appellant has preferred this second appeal. 2. I have heard Mr. N.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M. R. Bhansali for the respondent. 3. The only question that arises for determination is whether the learned Senior Civil Judge was right in dismissing the appeal as barred by time. 4. The learned Munsif, Gangapur gave Judgment on Sept. 12, 1969. The defendant applied for obtaining the cer...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Shankar and ors. Vs. Satya Prakash and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj183; 1981()WLN610
G.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a Civil Misc. Appeal against the order of the District Judge, Jaipur City, dated 29-4-78, in an application for temporary injunction in a Civil Suit.2. It is common ground between the parties that this is a Civil Suit u/s. 9 of the Specific Relief Act based on the allegation of unlawful dispossession within six months from the filing of the suit.3. The property in dispute was of Kalyan Bux. Plaintiff (1) Krishna Devi is the daughter of Kalyan Bux and Satya Prakash is alleged to be the adopted son of Kalyan Bux. Satya Prakash is the real son of Krishna Devi.4. The defendants are relatives of Kalyan Bux and out of them Hari Shankef claims to be the adopted son of Kalyan Bux.5. Kalyan Bux expired on 28-4-73 leaving behind his widow Gendi Bai, who expired on 10-11-1976. According to the plaintiff, from 10-11-1976 to 17-4-1977, the defendants took unlawful possession of the property of Kalyan Bux and made certain demolitions, alterations and constructions. According...
Tag this Judgment!Pala Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-03-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)273
D.P. Gupta, Actg. C.J.1. This writ petition was taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learnedcounsel for the parties.2. The petitioner's contention in this case is that although the ceiling matter in respect of the petitioner's land was decided under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Moldings Act, 1973, by the Sub-Divisioinal Officer, Sri Karanpur, on 17.6.1980 but thereafter a notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sri Karanpur, on 1.12.1980, under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is contended that after the repeal of the provisions of Chapter III-B of the Act. a fresh notice could not be given under those provisions on 1.12.1980.3. In Banshidhar v. State it was held by this Court that the proceedings which are commenced under Chapter III-B of Rajasthan Tenancy Act for determination of the ceiling and surplus area of the land holder and were pending when the Act of 1973 came into fo...
Tag this Judgment!Gurtej Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)315
D.P. Gupta, Actg. C.J.1. The petitioner has challenged by means of this writ petition the authority of the Executive Engineer, Gang Canal, South Division, Sri Ganganagar, who is also by virtue of his office the Divisional Irrigation Officer, to take proceedings for shifting of outlet in pursuance of notice Ex. 3. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that two Divisions, viz. C.A.D. I and C.A.D. II have been created by the State Government Under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainge Act 1954, hereinafter referred to as '1954 Act' and that R.B. Chaks have been placed in the C.A.D. Division II. The petitioner's Chak No. '51' R.B. has, therefore, been placed in the C.A.D. Division II. Hence, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Executive Engineer, Gang Canal, South Division, has no jurisdiction left to take any proceedings for shifting of outlet in respect of the petitioner's chak.2.The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›