Rajasthan Court August 1981 Judgments
Jetharam Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN566
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Patwari by the District Land Records Officer, Pali on July 10, 1951. In the year 1963 he was posted as a Patwari in village Chanari, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali.2. The Sub-divisional Officer, Bali visited village Chanari on November 7, 1963 and during his tour two complaints were submitted before him by the residents of the village. One complaint was made by Shankersingh and Roopa while the other by Dhula, Bhura, Dalla and Premraj. In both cases an allegation was made that the petitioner, while acting as a Patwari, did not enter in the 'Patwar Record' the newly constructed wells of the complainants and demanded Rs. 11/-each for making the requisite entry and thus he was guilty of demanding illegal gratification. Two departmental enquiries were initiated in respect of the two complaints file against the petitioner and two different charge sheets were served upon the petitioner, on a of which will here in after be referred to a...
Tag this Judgment!Ramsharan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Three ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)281
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for parties.2. After holding a preliminary enquiry against Gauri Shanker, the Collector felt satisfied and made a report to the Government along with the recommendation. On receiving the report from the Collector, the State Government drew up a statement of charges prima facie made out against respondent No. 3, Gauri Shanker specifying therein, the necessary details. A copy of the statement of the charges, drawn up on the basis of the record was sent to respondent No. 3 under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the Rules. The State Government also suspended respondent No. 3 vide order dated 1st May, 1979. Thereafter on receipt of the representation keeping in view the findings of the Enquiry Officer and after affording a reasonable opportunity to Gauri Shanker Sarpanch, the State Government came to' the conclution that charges framed against respondent No. 3 were not proved. The State Government vide order dated 26th February, 1981 exonerated the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Iqbal Singh Vs. Ram Nath Choudhary and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN574
G.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a revision petition by a tenant. The proceedings are petition in execution of a decree for eviction passed in favour of the landlord. The decree for eviction was passed on the basis of compromise. The plaintiff landlord filed suit for ejectment on the ground of personal necessity as contenplated by Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (here in after called as the Act of 1950). This decree was passed in the year 1974. In terms of decree, 7 years time was granted to the tenant to vacate the premises.2. The plaintiff alleged bonafide and personal necessity and though initially the suit was contested on this ground, but before any evidence could be recorded, the defendant agreed and filed a compromise in which he admitted the personal necessity of the landlord. Certain other terms were incorporated regarding the compensation of use of land in a phased manner and the right to execute the decree before 7 years in case of default in ...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Iqbal Singh Vs. Ram Nath Chowdhary and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Raj116
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a revision petition by a tenant. The proceedings are pending in execution of a decree for eviction passed in favour of the landlord. The decree for eviction was passed on the basis of a compromise. The plaintiff-landlord filed suit for ejectment on the ground of personal necessity as contemplated by Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter called as the Act of 1950). This decree was passed in the year 1974. In terms of decree, 7 years time was granted to the tenant to vacate the premises.2. The plaintiff alleged bona fide and personal necessity and though initially the suit was contested on this ground, but before any evidence could be recorded, the defendant agreed and filed a compromise in which he admitted the personal necessity of the landlord. Certain other terms were incorporated regarding the compensation of use of land in a phased manner and the right to execute the decree before 7 years in case of defaul...
Tag this Judgment!Sushri Sunita Vs. University of Jodhpur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)182
M.B. Sharma, J.1. Through this writ petition, the petitioner, who had applied for the post of lecturer in Political Science, seeks the quashing of the selections of respondents Nos. 3 to 6 for the appointment to the post of Lecturer in department of Political Science, University of Jodhpur.2. Posts of lecturer in the department of Political Science in the University of Jodhpur were advertised. The petitioner, along with respondents Nos. 3 to 6 and others applied for the said posts. The statutory selection committee for the selection of lecturer, Political Science, was to meet on July 9, 1981 in which candidates were called for interview. The petitioner apprehended that the selections will not be fair, filed a representation on July 7, 1981 seeking some clarifications and also mentioned therein that in case she does not hear anything, she will not appear before the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee, with the Vice Chancellor as Chairman, interviewed respondent No. 3 to 6 along...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Patni Vs. Smt. Hansa
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-1981
Reported in: 1981WLN(UC)264
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This a revision filed by the husband against the order of the learned District Judge, Pali, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') awarding a sum of Rs. 270/- p.m. as pendente lite maintenance and Rs. 800/- as expenses of proceedings.2. Notice of this revision petition was given to the non-petitioner and Mr. M.L. Kala has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Looking to the controversy involved, both the learned advocate-agree that this revision petition may be disposed finally at this stage.3. This petitioner filed an application under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of his marriage with non-petitioner by a decree of divorce. In that application, an application under Section 24 of the Act was filed for pendente lite maintenance and the expenses of the proceedings. Affidavits were filed and the learned District Judge, Pali, holding that the net monthly income of the petitioner is Rs. 535/- per month and a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›