Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-06-1989
Reported in : 1989WLN(UC)336
V.S. Dave, J.1. This reference has been made by learned Special Judge Dacoity Affected Area, Karauli vide his order of reference, dated 20-6-1988 where in he has framed the following question for answer:'Whether the Magistrates having jurisdiction over the dacoity affected areas are competent to perform functions in relation to scheduled offences, prior to the stage of trial before the Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Areas'?2. Almost connected with the aforesaid question the point also emerge in Man Singh v. State, S.B Cr. Misc Petition No. 369/88, Heera Lal v. Johari and Ors. SB. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 178/89 and Hari Ram v. State SB. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2859/88. These cases therefore, have also been heard along with this reference though they will be disposed of by separate orders purely based on the result of this reference.3. Before appreciating the point referred to it will be essential to give the back-ground in which this question has arisen. On a written report from one Mano...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-13-1989
Reported in : AIR1991Raj1; 1990(1)WLN689
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 9-1-87 whereby, the writ petition was dismissed. 2. The appellant M/s. J. K. Synthetics Limited challenged the notification dated 13-2-84 (Annx. 8) published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 15-3-84 issued under Section 4(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1950, whereby, the Municipal Area of the Nimbahera Municipality was extended. The petitioner sought a declaration that the said notification is illegal and without authority of law and be quashed and octroi realised by the Municipal Board, Nimbahera be ordered to be refunded and the Municipal Board be restrained from realising any octroi duty from the petitioner company. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid notification on the ground that the objections filed by the petitioner-company were not considered properly and were disposed of without application of mind in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no spe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-25-1989
Reported in : AIR1990Raj132; 1(1990)WLN(Rev)41
ORDER1. This petition is directed against the order of Board of Revenue dated 14-2-1980 Ex. 3 whereby the learned Member of the Board of Revenue dismissed the petitioner's' appeal and upheld the order of the Additional Collector dt. 6-2-1979. The learned Addl. Collector dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the authorised officer dated 23rd June, 1977. A few relevant facts may briefly be noted.2. The Authorised Officer, Ganganagar initiated proceedings against the present petitioner under the Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973. He however dropped the proceedings under Section 12(1) on 17-12-1974 and did not issue any draft statement as in his opinion the assessee did not hold any excess land over the ceiling limit. An appeal against that order was preferred before the Additional Collector which was allowed and the authorised officer was directed to prepare a final statement under Section 13 and to acquire the surplus land. The present petitioner went in a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-25-1989
Reported in : AIR1991Raj17; [1994(68)FLR373]; 1989(2)WLN616
M.C. Jain, Actg. C.J. 1. The petitioners, in the above petitions, have prayed for declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated and/ or continued in pursuance of the notification Annexs. 1 and 2 are wholly void and illegal and the proceedings have in fact lapsed and they have sought quashing of notifications issued under Section 4(1), 6(1) and 17(4) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 dated August 10, 1983 published in Rajasthan Raj-Patra dated 8-9-83 and notification issued under Section 17(1) dated 10-12-84 published in Rajasthan Raj Patra on the same date. They have also sought quashing of the notice under Section 9 dated 13-10-88 (Annx. 3). They have further prayed that the respondents be directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the disputed land in pursuance of the aforesaid notifications and they have further sought quashing of the General Awards dated 29-12-88 and specific award dated 30-12-88. 2. According to the petitioners, they are the Khatedars of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-09-1989
Reported in : AIR1991Raj42; 1990(1)WLN509
ORDERD.L. Mehta, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 18-1-89 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur.2. Plaintiff instituted a suit in the court of learned District Judge, Jaipur City, which was transferred in the court of Additional district Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 10,001/-. Defendant submitted the written statement and raised the objection that the property is worth more than Rs. 1 lac and plaintiff should be asked to make payment of the court-fees valuing the suit at Rs. 1 lac.3. Application was also moved subsequently under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court-fees Act and prayer was made that the Court should inquire about the valuation of the property in dispute and decide this point first before hearing of the suit as contemplated by Order 14, C.P.C. Application moved by the defendant was rejected by the trial court. Being aggrieved with the order of rejecting this revision ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-03-1989
Reported in : AIR1991Raj14; 1990(1)WLN64
ORDER1. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks to quash the notification dated 1-5-87 Anx. 3 whereby the State Government appointed administrator in exercise of the power conferred under Section293-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959.2. The ground of challenge inter alia, is that the impugned notification does not specify the period in the notification during which the appointment of the administrator shall continue. According to the petitioners the provision contained in Section 293-a is a mandatory provision. On the existence of the situations envisaged in Clauses (a) to (e) of Section 293-A, the State Government is empowered to appoint an administrator by notification in the official gazette for such period as may be specified in the notification and it may also, by like notification, curtail or extend the period of such appointment.3. The petitioner has also sought a declaration that amendments made in Section 4(8)(b) and Section 11 of the Act by the Rajasthan Municipal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-24-1989
Reported in : 1989(2)WLN41
1. On the last date it was given out by the learned Counsel for the parties that a limited controversy is involved in the present writ petition as to whether if any sum for the period of disconnection of electricity during the agreement period of five years is due to the Electricity Board, whether the same can be recovered under the provisions of Rajasthan Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Act, 1960, Rajasthan Act No. 34 of 1960 (for short the Act). It was, therefore, agreed that the case should be disposed of at the orders stage.2. The facts are not disputed and they are these : An agreement in between the petitioner-firm and the R S.E.B. for the supply of electric energy to the extent of 350 K.VA contract demand was entered into on 13th May, 1976. The electric energy was released to the petitioner by the Board on 8th July, 1976. Therefore, the agreement period of five years was to expire on 7th July, 1981. There is no dispute between the parties that in the aforesaid ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-03-1989
Reported in : AIR1990Raj1; 1989(2)WLN267; 1(1989)WLN(Rev)409
ORDERMilap Chandra, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Civil Judge, Barmer dt. Dec. 1, 1986 by which he was held that the sale deed dated April 14, 1980 executed by the petitioner Bhanwarlal in favour of the non-petitioner Babulal on Stamp papers of total value of Rs. 394/- is not duly stamped and has impounded it u/s. 38, Stamp Act. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petitions may be summarised thus. 2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 has filed Suit No. 17/82 for declaration and possession in the Court of the Civil Judge, Banner against the petitioner Bhanwarlal and other non-petitioners. The said sale deed was tendered in evidence during the statement of defendant-petitioner Bhanwarlal D.W. 1. Application Paper No. B54/ 1 was moved, by the plaintiff non-petitioner Tejmal that the stamps of the sale deed have been purchased on different dates, they bear different numbers, they have not been used within six months of their purchase a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-16-1989
Reported in : AIR1991Raj121; 1990(1)WLN437
M.C. Jain Actg. C.J. 1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated May 14, 1985 whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and he set aside the order of the Rajasthan State Co-operative Tribunal, Jaipur dated 15-11-1975 and remanded the case back of the said Tribunal to decide the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 Shri N.K. Tyagi against the order dated 16-2-1971 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Socities, Bharatpur Zone, Bharatpur on merit in accordance with law.2. A few facts may briefly be noticed.The petitioner respondent No. 3 was appointed as Manager of the Sawai Madhopur Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. vide order dated October 23, 1961. The Chairman of the Society suspended him on 16-1-1969 and thereafter he was served with a charge-sheet dated 1-3-1969. Thereafter without any enquiry into the alleged misconduct of the petitioner his services wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-01-1989
Reported in : [1990(60)FLR9]; (1991)IILLJ130Raj; 1989(2)WLN280
Byas, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order dated October 12, 1987 (Annexure-6) by which his services were terminated. The petition was originally filed against the respondent Bank and its Secretary. Subsequently, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur was impleaded as party.2. Briefly recalled, the relevant facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed as L.D.C. in the respondent Bank on 24th January, 1987 on daily wages. While he was so working on the post of L.D.C., he was appointed as Class IV employee in the regular pay scale on 15th May, 1987 by order Annexure-5. By the impugned order, Annexure-6 dated 12th October, 1987 his services were terminated. It appears from Annexure-6 that the petitioner's appointment was found irregular and as such the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Government of Rajasthan (respondent No. 3) issued directions to terminate his services. In compliance of those directions, the Administrator of the Bank issued t...
Tag this Judgment!