Rajasthan Court February 1982 Judgments
Surta Ram Vs. the Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)22
D.P. Gupta, Actg. C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer, dated March 10, 1981.2. The petitioner was admittedly employed as a class IV servant in the Higher Secondary School, Shri Bijainagar, since November 1, 1958. A temporary allotment of agricultural land in Chak No. 2 B.L.M was made in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for a permanent allotment of the land 'n question and an order of allotment was passed in favour of the petitioner on January 18, 1974 in respect of 25 Bighas of land situated in Chak No. 2 B.L.M. of village Bilochia in Tehsil Anoopgarh District Sri Ganganagar.3. A complaint was made that the petitioner had obtained allotment of the aforesaid land by furnishing false information. Thereupon the Deputy Commissioner, Colonization, Rajasthan Canal Project, Bijainagar issued a notice to the petitioner as to why the allotment made in his favour be not cancelled and the land be ordered to be r...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Sumer Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)90
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. is directed against the appellate order dated July 18, 1980 of the District Judge, Jalore, passed under Section 47A(3) of the Stamp Act as inserted in Rajasthan.2. Non-petitioner No. 1 Nemichand sold his house in Bhinmal to non-petitioner No. 1 Sumerchand alias Nenaji in the year 1970. The sale deed was presented for registration on October 9, 1970 before the Tehsildar. It was recited in the sale-deed that the house his been sold for Rs. 18,000/-. One Gajraj filed a complaint supported by his affidavit before the Tehsildar stating that the house has been sold by non-petitioner No. 2 Nemichand to non-petitioner No. 1 Sumerchand alias Nenaji for Rs. 35,000/- and not Rs. 18,000/-. The Sale-deed was registered by the Tehsildar and he sent it to determine the consideration and to assess and recover the duty in conformity with such determination. The Collector, Jalore, by his order dated March 31, 1979, directed that the s...
Tag this Judgment!Siya Sadan Vs. Sagar Mal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN118
G.M. Lodha, J. 1. 'Shocking scarcity of a chhappar, roof to rest', results in stretching of the bones on pavements of Chopati, Kalba Devi, Bada Bajar, Dharam Tala, Chandni Chowk, Panch Batti and Sojati Gate, the prestigious shopping centres, exposing the hyprocratic flooded lights over dark dry skeletons of poor, down trodden, pavement dwellers of India, have compelled the patrogonists of 'social justice' to adopt beneficial interpretation for protecting tenants from evictions under the Rent Control laws of the land But the ingenuity of the resourceful segment of landlord lawyers want to overstep intention of the legislators and crusadors of 'social justice', by enacting 'Merchant of Venice and Portia' to make tenants defenceless and deprive them from the valuable right of defence against the ejectment, by hypertechnical interpretation of Sub-sections (2), (3), (4) & (5) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eciction) Act, 1950.2. The pivot of debate in the instant...
Tag this Judgment!Nagar Parishad Vs. Ganga Lahari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2325
G.M. Lodha, J.1. This is an appeal by Municipal Council, Alwar against the judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar in criminal case No. 18/257/74 acquitting the respondent for offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. The prosecution case is that on 11-6-1972 Food Inspector Hanuman Modi inspected the shop of accused in Munshi Bazar. He suspected adulteration in chillies and took samples. These samples were put in three bottles and sealed. One bottle was given to the accused and was sent for public analysis. According to the report of Public Analyst Ex. P. 3 it was found that the chillies were adulterated.3. In support of the case the prosecution examined P. W. 1 Hanuman Modi and P. W. 2 Omprakash and P. W. 3 Kuldeep Kumar. The accused denied the taking of the sample and produced D. W. 1 Bhagwan Das and D. W. 2 Yograi Dixit. The trial court considered the evidence produced by the parties and found that the sample was taken from...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and Ganesh Ram Vs. Ota and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)25
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. Both the aforesaid appeals arise out of the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore dated October 21, 1974, as such we are disposing of both the appeals by one common judgment.2. A challan was filed against seven accused-persons viz., Ota, Ganesha, Pratapa, Lachhiya, Hukma, Geniya and Kapura. The learned trial court framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 452, 323/149 and 120B IPC against accused Ota, Ganesha, Hukma, Geniya, Kapura and Lachhiya. The accused-Pratapa was charged under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 sad 120B IPC only. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted accused Hukma, Geniya, Kapura, Lachhiya and Pratapa. Accused Ota was convicted under Sections 323 IPC and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Accused Ganesha was convicted under Section 304 part II, I.P.C. and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default D.B, Criminal Appeal Nos. 209 & 266 of 1975-Decided on 11-2-1982 ...
Tag this Judgment!Khangiya and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)92
M.C. Jain, J.1. The appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 147, 436 and 440, I.P.C., and have been sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment, one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-, on each count respectively. Sentences have also been awarded in default of payment of fine for the offences under Section 436 and 440, I.P.C.2. The prosecution case is that there is an agricultural land situated in village Devki measuring about 86 'bighas' and 5 'biswas' comprised of 'khasra' No. 204 there is a well attached to it on the land for irrigation. The complainant Shankarlal had 1/10th share in the land. According to him, he used to cultivate 32 'bighas' and little more land for the last four years having purchased the land from the different cultivators. There were other co-sharers in 'khasra' No. 204. The prosecution case is that the other co-sharers, namely, Khangiya, Gamia, Chelia, Roopa a...
Tag this Judgment!Tejeng Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)117
M.C. Jain, J.1. Appellant Tejeng has been convicted for the offence under Section 366, I.P.C. has been sentenced to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, by his judgment dated January 19, 1977.2. The Prosecution case, in brief, is that in the morning of 11-5-76, Mst. Tola P.W. 1 aged 20 years along with her niece Mst. Kala aged 12 years left their house for the jungle for collecting the wood. It is said that the accused-appellant Tejeng came to them and asked Mst. Tola to accompany him and he will keep her as his wife. There upon, Mst. Tola refused. It is said that the accused inflicted 2-3 lathis blows on the left leg of Mst. Tola and pulled her away. At a distance of 100 paces, one Lalchand met them and he also pulled her. At some distence, Mahji and Bhomji also told blows, The prosecution case further is that near the village Hetabari, Mahji and Bhomji left them. After some distance, Lalchand also left their company. Tejeng took Mst. Tola first to v...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chandra Kala Vs. Padam Chand @ Padam Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)18
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the interlocutory order dated September 17, 1981 of the District Judge, Udaipur, by which the learned District Judge, dismissed the petitioner's application dated September 17, 1981, in which it was prayed by her that her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (No. XXV of 1955) (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) be disposed of first. The ground stated in the application was that without obtaining the litigation expenses, it is not possible to get the written statement prepared, for, fee has to be paid to the counsel for the purpose. The learned District Judge by the impugned order while dismissing the application directed that the petitioner should file the written statement on September 19, 1981. The non-petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act in the Court of District Judge, Udaipur on February 9, 1981. After service of summons, on behalf of the non-petitioner, Shri J.L. Mehta, Advocate, fil...
Tag this Judgment!Pawar and Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1982
Reported in: [1982]50STC318(Raj)
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. As almost identical questions of fact and law are involved in both these cases, we dispose of these cases by one common order for convenience. We are stating the facts of Writ Petition No. 147 of 1982 only.2. The petitioner field this writ petition on 29th January, 1982, challenging the notice (annexure 1) issued under Section 7A read with Section 16(1)(i) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sales Tax Act'), and under Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sales Tax Rules'). The case of the petitioner is that he is a registered trader and dealer for the purposes of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The petitioner started his business on 13th May, 1981. The petitioner submitted return of sale and purchase as required under Section 7 of the Sales Tax Act for the period between 13th May, 1981, till 9th August, 1981. Later on the petitioner found that as there was no taxable turnover as envisage...
Tag this Judgment!Akbar Ali and anr. Vs. Ambalal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Raj263; 1982()WLN169
M.C. Jain, J.1. The above two appeals raise common questions of law, so they are being disposed of by thts common judgment.2. Both these appeals have been filed by the defendant-transferees of properties in suits for pre-emption, being unsuccessful in both the courts below, as the suits for pre-emption have been decreed by both the courts. The plaintiffs Ambalal and Heeralal instituted suits for pre-emption in respect of two immovable properties described in paras 2 of the plaints. In Civil Appeal No. 351/72, the property transferred consists of one 'Talia' and one 'Otla'. These immovable properties were sold by defendant No. 1 Dadamchand to the appellant Akbar Ali on 4-12-1967 for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and in appeal No. 352/72 Dadamchand sold one house property for a sum of Rs. 500/- on 18-12-1967 to Mulla Abbas Bhai. The ground of pre-emption, as alleged by the plaintiffs in both the suits, is that the properties of the parties situate in one 'Gali' and a common 'Chowk' and they have ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »