Rajasthan Court March 1982 Judgments
Sita Ram and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Raj256; 1982()WLN234
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. As identical questions of law are involved in these cases it would be convenient to dispose of these cases by one common order.2. According to the petitioners, they are residents of village Moongaska in the vicinity of City of Alwar. Acquisition proceedings of 189 Bighas 10 Biswas of land was taken by the respondents and in pursuance thereof a notification under Seclion 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on 11th March, 1981. A notification dated 7th August, 1981, published in Rajasthan Gazette Part I (Kha) dated August 13, 1981, was issued under Sections 6 and 17 (4) of the Act. According to the petitioners they were served with individual notices under Seclion 9 of the Act when they came to know about the 'and acquisition proceedings. The acquisition proceedings are challenged mainly on the ground that:(i) Notification under Section 4 (1) was not published in accordance with requirement of Section 45 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Balu and ors. Vs. Birda and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj13; 1982()WLN258
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Can the protective umbrella of Section 42, Rajasthan Tenancy Act, aimed to implement the socio-economic uplift of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, by prohibiting transfer of land by them, so that they retain land, be nullified and set at naught by ingenious legal trickery of affluent and resourceful segment of society by obtaining compromise decrees, surrendering the land to Non-Scheduled Caste When a landless tiller Harijan or Girijan again becomes landless by compromise, would the law permit such economic suicide by Harijans, against legislative intent of Section 42, is the pivot of debate in this Harijan's litigations.2. And now the traditional narration of facts.3. This is plaintiffs' second appeal - after making attempt to get a decree in two lower Courts.4. The plaintiffs' are Harijans and therefore members of Scheduled Caste in Rajasthan. The plaintiffs are Khatedars of some agricultural land. There is a chequered history of the case in which in an earli...
Tag this Judgment!Dhudaram Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj29; 1982()WLN201
ORDERM.B. Sharma, J. 1. In this writ petition, animportant question is involved about the powers of the State Government to nominate a committee in a co-operative society.2. The petitioner, agriculturist by profession, is a member of the Bikaner Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Limited, Bikaner (for short, 'the Bhandar' hereinafter) since the year 1963. The Bhandar which is a consumers' cooperative society, was registered as a co-operative society on January 23, 1963 under the provisions of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter called 'the Act') by registration No. 373-F. The petitioner has been a Chairman of the Bhandar twice and lastly, he was elected as such on August 20, 1976. As per bye-law No. 11 (6) (2) of the Bye-laws of the Bhandar, the period of the Managing Committee (Sanchalak Mandal) is to be three years. The election had taken place on 20-8-1976 and the three years' period was to expire on August 20. 1979 but before the expiry of the aforesaid the...
Tag this Judgment!Mazid Khan Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj180; 1982()WLN660
ORDERGuman Mal Lodha, J.1. The Petitioner Mazid has filed this petition challenging the order of the Director Fishery, Government of Rajasthan Annexure 5 Dt. 19-02-1982 which reads as under:--jktLFkku ljdkj funsZ'kky; i'kqikyu jktLFkku]t;iqj- A ekad&1A8A lsok @Bsdk@81&82@1473 fnukad 19&2&82@ Jh ethn [kka eRL; Bsdsnkj xzke&xknyh;]rglhy&dkek; ftyk&Hkjriqj; A fc'k;%&&cU;/k uhxks e; unh ftyk lokbZ&ek;/kksiqj dk o'kZ 1981&82ds eRL; vk[ksV Bsdk Lohfr ds e esa A izlax%&& fnukad 18&12&81 dks lEiUugq, Bsds ,oa ea=h egksn;] i'kqikyu foHkkx jktLFkku] t;iqj dks izsf'kr ,oafunsZ'kky; dks i`'Bkafaadu vkidk izkFkZuk i= fnukad fuy tks funsZ'kky; esafn- 20&1&82 dks izkIr gqvk ds e esa A egksn;] fo'k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd cU/k uhxks e; unh ftyk lokbZek/kksiqj dk eRL; vk[ksVBsdk o'kZ 1979&80 ls Jh- gehn vyh eRL; Bsdsnkj fuoklh lokbZek/kksiqj dsgd esa 5 o'kZ dh vof/k ds fy;s foHkkx }kjk vuqcU/k fd;k x;k Fkk ftldko'kZ 80&81 ds fy;s Hkh ughuhdj.k fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk bl o'kZ1981&82 esa Hkh blh Bsdsnkj ds gd esa uo...
Tag this Judgment!Sawai Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN280
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The only point involved in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the disciplinary authority concerned who tentatively decided to impose the punishment of removal from service under Rule 14 (vi) of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules') could impose the graver punishment of dismissal from service under Rule 14 (vii) of the Rules at the time of the passing of the final orders. '2. The facts necessary for determining the aforesaid question may succintly be stated: while the petitioner was working as Patwari, Mokhampura, Tehsil Bali, District Pali, he was served with a memorandum dated July 28, 1967 issued by the Collector (L.R.) Pali along with charge sheet and statement of allegations. The petitioner filed reply to the charge sheet. The Collector appointed Shri P. K. Garg, S.D.O., Pali as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his rep...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Saligram Vs. Sagar Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj176
G.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a Civil Second Appeal by the landlord whosesuit has been dismissed by the first appellate court. The plaintiff-landlord filed a suit for eviction of the defendant-tenant on the ground of bona fide and reasonable necessity. Although the specific requirement was not specified in the plaint, but in the course of evidence it was claimed that the plaintiff who was a qualified doctor would start a dispensary in the disputed shop after retirement.2. The trial Court decreed the suit, but it was dismissed by the first appellate Court holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove bona fide and reasonable necessity.3. The first appellate Court was of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove bona fide and reasonable necessity on account of the following read sons: --(1) That the plaintiff has not specified the nature of the requirement in the plaint.(2) That the plaintiff is not specific about the purpose for which he wants the shop to be vacated.(3) That the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Chandra Vs. the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Through ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN508
G.M. Lodha, J.1. 'For a Judge, if quantity is lost, nothing is lost, if quality is lost, something is lost but if 'independence, integrity or impartiality', is lost, everything is lost.2. 'The emblem or symbol of 'Justice is 'Balance' or 'Scales'. A Judge is required to maintain it 'even' maticulously and not allow it to 'tilt' on any consideration whatsoever, 'Tilting of' Balance of justice or the scales of justice' by weight of' coin is the very antethesis of a 'Judge' and 'Justice'. It is the worst 'stigma' against a Judge. For a Judge 'independence, is 'heart' and 'integrity' is his 'lungs'.3. Inspite of the above explicit law laid down by me in Umed Singh v. Bahadur Singh and Ors. 1980 WLN 276 a judicial officer who has been termed in confidential dishonest officer' in 1974, after withholding of Integrity certificate in 1970, adverse report of Integrity in 1972, bad reputation of integrity in 1972, has dared to invoke discretionary extraordinary jurisdiction for claiming retrospec...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Chandra Vs. the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodh ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN504
G.M. Lodha, J.1. A Judicial Office of Rajasthan has filed this writ petition against the High Court with following prayer:It is, therefore prayed that by appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 23rd June 1981 may be declared illegal and be quashed and the respondent directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits as if the order dated 23rd June, 1981 was never passed.Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner.2. The principal challenge is to the suspension order dated 13-6-81.3. Mr. Singhvi learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suspension order deserves to be quashed, firstly on the ground that an order both for initiation of enquiry as well as suspension can only be passed by a joint consideration of the Chief Justice and Administrative Judge, as required by clause I of the Circular of the Rajastha...
Tag this Judgment!Nahar Singh and ors. Vs. Preetam Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN70
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. This application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. raises a short but interesting question about the interpretation of Section 484(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (here in after called 'the new Code').2. The facts, which have given rise to the aforesaid question, may be briefly stated, are that different plots of agricultural lands, measuring 112 bighas 7 biswas, were allotted by the Custodian Department to Khanumal alias Khiyamal, Maganmal, Chimanlal and Deepa Mal in the year 1961. In order to manage the said 112 bighas and 7 biswas land, all the aforesaid allottees appointed one Balchand Sindhi as their Power of Attorney Holder. Some time later, the Mukhtiar Aam, Balchand Sindhi, sold the said 112 bighas and 7 biswas land by means of a registered sale-deed dated September 29, 1969 to Kapoor Singh, Karnailsingh and Nihalsingh, who will here in after be described as 'party No. 2'. But Nahar Singh and Polasingh, who will here in after be described as 'party...
Tag this Judgment!Ratanlal Vs. Ramkumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj35; 1982()WLN538
Guman Mal Lodha, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal against whom a decree for eviction has been passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ramganj Mandi, on 30th March. 1974, and the same has been affirmed in appeal by the District Judge.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are alleged by the appellant may now be mentioned and they are as under:--That the plaintiff-respondent Dr. Ram Kumar brought a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the appellant and his two brothers who are pro forma respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on 14th Oct.,1971 in respect of a shop situated in Ramganj Mandi on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity and arrears of rent amount to Rs. 225 from 15th Jan.. 1970 to 14th Aug., 1971. Para No. 5 of the plaint in which the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity was mentioned is reproduced as under : 5- ^^;g fd oknh ds nks yMds o;Ldgks pqds gS o Mhty baftu dh o vkVksekckbYl dh Vsfuax bUnkSj o vU; LFkkuks lsizkIr djds vk x;s gS o eksVj...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »