Rajasthan Court January 2007 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.
Karnail Singh and ors. Vs. the Board of Revenue and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN359
P.S. Asopa, J.1. Since the common set of facts and question of law relating to authority of the State Government to withdraw the notice issued under Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling. on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1973') are involved in all these three writ petitions, therefore, all the three petitions are heard together and further are being decided together.2. By the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioners have mainly challenged the judgment of Larger Bench of Board of Revenue dt. 19.06.1995 whereby it has been held that the State Government cannot stay/review/withdraw or rescind an order passed by it under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1973, after the same has been complied with by the Additional Collector. The other ancillary/ consequential prayers have also been made.3. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the present petitioners are ultimate transferee of the land initially held by Narendra Singh...
Kana Ram Vs. Smt. Kisturi Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN141
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellant is aggrieved against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by two Courts below in a suit filed by none else than the appellant's own wife respondents wherein the respondents submitted that she has half share in the suit property and the Courts below declared her half share as she claimed.3. It will be worth while to mention here that the respondent/plaintiff in her plaint very specifically pleaded that she may be declared owner of half of the property and that too which is on the eastern side of the plot and in which the plaintiff/respondent is residing. The appellant/defendant submitted written statement and admitted that the respondent/plaintiff is his wife. However, he levelled some allegations against the respondent/plaintiff which appears to be of not very serious nature but the appellant also submitted that the respondent submitted a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. wherein the matter was settled betw...
Ram Chandra Vs. Lrs. of Beni Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN426
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dt. 03.08.2006 by which the trial Court dismissed the petitioner's application filed under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act.3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner filed suit for eviction of the defendant/non-petitioners on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant wherein the defendant took a plea that the defendant is in possession as mortgagee. The mortgage deed is registered one. In the said eviction suit, two Courts below namely, trial Court and First Appellate Court held that the defendant is in possession as mortgagee. The present petitioner in that case preferred second appeal which is said to be pending before this Court.3A. In view of the defence taken by the defendant mortgagee, the petitioner/plaintiff submitted an application under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act before the trial Court and submitted that he is ready to pay the mor...
Prem Prakash Solanki Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN312
H.R. Panwar, J.1. Petitioner Prem Prakash Solanki addressed a letter to this Court raising his grievance with regard to grant of third selection grade. By order dt. 29.03.2004, the letter sent by the petitioner to this Court was treated as writ petition.2. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the non-petitioners to grant him third selection grade on completion of 27 years of service w.e.f. 22.05.1994.3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. The petitioner came with a case that he was regularly appointed on the post of Junior Draughtsman w.e.f. 22.05.1967 along with similarly situated persons namely Srikrishan Bhawankhel and Indersingh Rathore. Originally, these two persons namely Srikrishan Bhawankhel and Indersingh Rathore and the petitioner were appointed on the recommendation of the Selection Committee vide order No. 163 EST/42/68/22 dt. 01.01.1969 issued by the Govt. of Rajasthan, Department of Irrigation, Jaipur on coming into force of Rajast...
Goyal Buitumins India Vs. Jaipur Development Authority
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN13
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Aggrieved by the Order dt. 14.10.2005 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, two different petitions, namely, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Civil Writ Petition have been filed before this Court. Since both the parties are aggrieved by the same Order, both the petitions are being decided by this common judgment.2. The brief facts of the case are that vide letter dt. 31.01.1991, the Jaipur Development Authority (henceforth to be referred as 'the JDA', for short) had granted the work of providing and fixing street light on Tonk Road from Gopalpura Junction to Durgapura and upto Jawahar Circle, Jaipur within a period of four months to the Goyal Buitumins India (henceforth to be referred as 'the appellant', for short). According to the work-order, the work was to begin on 15.02.1991 and was to be completed by 14.06.1991. However, due to certain reasons beyond the control of the appellant; the work could not be completed till 15.10.1993. However, the w...
Mukesh Dev (Smt.) and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1840; RLW2007(2)Raj1253
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Smt. Mukesh Devi and Ghanshyam @ Mahaveer, appellants herein, along with Krishna Kumar, Dayala Ram and Smt. Suman Devi were placed on trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge Khetri, who vide judgment dated September 30, 2005 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:Mukesh Devi:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one year simple imprisonment. Under Section 341 IPC:To suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Under Section 323 IPC:To suffer simple imprisonment for one year. Under Section 324/34 IPC:To suffer simple imprisonment for one year. Ghanshyam @ Mahaveer: Under Section 302/34 IPC:To suffer life imprisonment and fine of -Rs.500/-, in default to further suffer one year simple imprisonment. Under Section 341 IPC:To suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Under Section 323/34 IPC:To suffer simple imprisonment for one year. Under Section 324 IPC:To suffer simple imprisonment for o...
Gopa Ram Vs. the Election Tribunal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2227
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on application for interim relief. However, at the request of learned Counsel for both the parties, the petition itself has been heard finally.3. The election for Sarpanch for Gram Panchayat Bilaniyasar of Tehsil Nokha in Bikaner Division was held on 31st January, 2005. In the said election appellant Gopa Ram was declared elected as Sarpanch and the Respondent Deepa Ram was one of the candidate who lost election behind the elected Sarpanch Gopa Ram.4. Election of said Gopa Ram was challenged by way of election petition by Deepa Rain inter alia on the ground that nomination papers of two other candidates viz. Kumba Rain S/o Mangal Nath R/o Dudawas Tehsil Nokha and Sumera Ram S/o Ganga Ram R/o Dudawas Tehsil Nokha, had wrongly been rejected. Apart from the aforesaid contention, it was also alleged that recounting of votes was erroneously ordered and by m...
Kan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN427
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the instant appeals, we propose to decide them by a common order.2. In Appeal No. 809/1994, order 22.07.1992 of the learned Single Judge is under challenge whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1, Kan Singh, was allowed at the back of the appellants. It is contended by the appellants that they are poor farmers having cultivatory possession on the land bearing Khasra No. 860/1192, which is half of the land belonging to the respondent No. 1, Kan Singh, and the appellants had purchased the said land by way of a registered sale deed dt. 18.07.1972. Division of the land of the respondent No. 1, Kan Singh, was made the names of the appellants had already been entered in the revenue records. Kan Singh was a land holder of land comprising of 57 Bighas 2 Biswas out of Khasra No. 860 and half of the land had been ordered to be taken by the State Government as out of the ceiling limits. The matter went...
Pragati Construction Co. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN471
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order 26th October, 2005, by which the learned District Judge, Chittorgrarh dismissed the petitioner as application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for staying the suit proceedings in a suit which was filed by the non-petitioner against the petitioner.3. Brief facts of the cases are that a supplementary agreement was executed for work contract, having consideration of Rs. 12,47,427.32 According to the non-petitioner-applicant, the defendant petitioner failed to complete the work and, therefore, the contract was terminated and the work order was given to the other party to complete the work left out by the defendant-petitioner at the cost of the defendant by the third party. According to the plaintiffnon- petitioner, the defendant since completed the work of Rs. 6,71,782/-, therefore, the remaining work was given to the third party. In that transactio...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Mukat Behari and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj595
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal against the plaintiff- respondent Mukat Behari was already dismissed as having abated on 12.9.2000. Later on, an application for setting aside that abatement was rejected by this Court on 12.4.2002 as the plaintiff-respondent Mukat Behari died on 17.6.99 and the appellant State did not take any steps for bringing on record legal representatives of said deceased plaintiff-respondent Mukat Behari. Therefore, the sole question which may be seen is as to whether the appeal as a whole stands abated against the other co- defendants or not.2. Nobody was present on behalf 'of appellant State. Mr. G.K. Garg, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has invited the attention of this Court towards the various judgments in support of his submission that the nature of decree in the present case in a suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction is of a joint and inserverable nature and, therefore, the whole appeal should be dismissed as having abated. Fir...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »