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 : Jan-10-1989
Reported in : 1990(1)WLN210
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. The point involved for decision in both these petitions is the effect of the amendment made in the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962 by the Rajasthan Forest Service (Amendment) Rules, 1985. These amendments were made in exercise of the powers conferred by Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by Notification dated June 22, 1985 published in the Rajasthan Gazette (Extraordinary) dated June 26, 1985. According to clause 1 (ii) of these amendments they came into force on the date of their publication in the Rajasthan Gazette. The contention of the petitioners is that these amendments are merely declatory and must be deemed to declare the position existing under the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962 even prior to these amendments. The question is, whether this contention can be accepted?2. The petitioners in both these petitions applied for selection for the Diploma Course in Forestry and after being so selected and getting the Diploma, were appointed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-17-1989
Reported in : AIR1991Raj67; 1992(2)WLC639; 1(1989)WLN(Rev)252
ORDERI.S. Israni, J. 1. We have heard Mr. Mehriah, learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the judgment dated October, 19, 1967 of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a twofold contention. The first is that the Board of Revenue did not go into the question as to whether the agricultural lands for which ceiling proceedings were initiated were ancestral property or not and without going into this question dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and his two sons viz. Prem Chand and Ram Swaroop. The second contention is that once the ceiling case is decided under chapter III-B of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the old Ceiling-Law') against the assessee and has also been decided under the provisions of Rajasthan (Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the New Ceiling Law') they cannot be reopened under subsection (2) of Section 15 of the New Ceiling Law.2. We shall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-17-1989
Reported in : 1989WLN(UC)494
P.C. Jain, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of (SIC) or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the proceeding pending in the Special Criminal Case No. 9 of 1971 in the Court of Special Judge for CBI cases, Jaipur on the ground of violation of his fundamental right of speedy public trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are not material because the question posed for our consideration is a (SIC) question of (SIC) so, (SIC) facts may be briefly stated since they would provide the (SIC) drop against which the question of law arises for consideration. The (SIC) for the factual matrix may be stated thus:3. The petitioner, in the year 1976, when he was posted and working as Income tax Officer at Sawai Madhopur, CBI, Jaipur registered a case, No. 27/76, on 17th September. 1975 against him under Section 5 read with Section 5/2 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-24-1989
Reported in : AIR1990Raj49
Navin Chandra Sharma, J. 1. This is first appeal by Kewalchand and Hastimal against the decree of the Additional District Judge Nagaur dated February 22, 1988 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 12,000/- and ejectment of the defendants from the suit premises and also awarding to the plaintiff damages for use and occupation of the premises at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month.2. Facts leading to the filing of this first appeal are that on September 28, 1983 plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Satyanarain instituted Civil Original Suit No. 19 of 1983 against partnership firm M/s Oswal Metal IndustriesNagaur and impleaded Kewalchand and Hastimal appellants as defendants in their capacity as partner of the said firm. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the suit premises were situated on the west of Railway Station, Nagaur and were bounded as described at the foot of para 1 of the plaint. It was alleged that the defendants took these premises on r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-06-1989
Reported in : 1989WLN(UC)302
Farooq Hasan, J.1. An allegedly flirt of 20, appellant Tajukhan who in a broad day light, with his alleged last-loaded criminality apart from sex stress in excess over-powered the temptingly lonely prosecutrix of twenty, Geeta, is said to have raped her in hurried heat have come up before this Court against his conviction under Section 376, IPC and a sentence of 2. year's R.I. with a fine of Rs. 50/- (in default, 3 months' R I) by quibbling legalities about poor corroboration, consent and false implication to devalue their credibility.2. The broad facts bearing on the instant act of carnal assault will help delineate the controversy of culpability. This screaming victim in her first information lodged at police station Laxmangarh (Sikar) on 23rd January, 1980, alleged that she was out raged by Tajukhan at 12 in the noon having fulfilled his erotic sortie at height of heap of sand on the road in between Laxmangarh and Sanwali (which is said to have been situated a little beside the road...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-07-1989
Reported in : 1990(1)WLN489
S.S. Byas, J.1. Accused Dhanna Lal and Babu Lal have been convicted Under Section 302, IPC and each has been sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of the payment of fine to further under go six months' simple imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar by his judgment dated November 23, 1987. The accused have come up in appeal and challenge their conviction.2. Stated in short, the prosecution case is that DW 1 Smt. Bhanwari Bai was a Khatedar tenant of some fields situate in village Kollu Khedi PS Jhawar, District Jhalawar. She sold her Khatedari in some of these fields to PW 1 Ismail Khan and his deceased brother Umrao Khan along with two or three persons on 6-7-1985 by executing the registered sale-deed Ex.P 28 in their favour. Possession of the fields were handed over to them by Smt. Bhanwari Bai on the same day. At about 3.00 or 4.00 p.m on 19-7-1985 PW 1 Ismail went to these fields and found the appellants Dhanna Lal and Babu Lai plough...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-07-1989
Reported in : 1(1989)WLN(Rev)437
M.B. Sharma, J.1. An important question is involved in this case as to whether after the expiry of the period of mortgage or 20 years as the case may be, in respect of agricultural land, whether the mortgagee in possession becomes a trespasser or a tenant ?2. The present writ petition is against the judgment dated May 11, 1979, passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan Ajmer and the said decision rendered in D.B. Appeal No. TA/68/75/Kota Shankarlal and Ors. v. Ram Chandra. The facts of the case are that on Kalyan was khatedar of khasra No. 89 measuring 15 bighas 17 biswas in village Chainpura. Tehsil Baran District Kota. The said land was under mortgage with the respondents Nos. 4 to 7 since S.Y. 1985, i.e. 1982. The petitioner under registered sale deed dated March 16, 1965, purchased the land in dispute from Kalyan, the recorded khatedar and mortgagor of the land in dispute. He filed a suit Under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, the Tenancy Act) for posse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-24-1989
Reported in : AIR1990Raj8; 1989WLN(UC)522
ORDERNavin Chandra Sharma, J.1. This is a review petition filed by Shri Fateh Singh Mehta under Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. seeking review of this Court's order dt. Feb. 16, 1987 passed in Civil Miscelleneous Appeal No. 9 of 1984 against the order-of District Judge, Jodhpur dt. Oct. 28, 1983 whereby this Court dismissed the appeal of Shri Fateh Singh Mehta and affirmed the temporary injunction granted by the District Judge against Shri Mehta and University of Jodhpur. 2. Facts leading to the filing of this review petition are that on July 31, 1982 Shri Om Prakash Singhal instituted Civil Suit No. 119 of 1982 against the University of Jodhpur. Shri Fateh Singh Mehta and Shri Murari Lal Mathur with the allegations that the plaintiff had obtained a degree in Master of Engineering (Mechanical) during the academic session, 1979-80 from the University of Jodhpur. In order to obtain that degree, a student apart from appearing in written examination and viva voce, has to submit a thesis on a selec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-27-1989
Reported in : AIR1990Raj135; 1990(1)WLN225
Navin Chandra Sharma, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff Dharmpal against the decree of the Additional District Judge. Ganganagar, dated October 18. 1977 upholding the decree of Civil Judge. Ganganagar dated May 29. 1974 dismissing his suit for pre-emption.2. Facts leading to the filing of this second appeal are that on October 12. 1972 plaintiff Dharampal insituted Civil Original Suit No. 24 of 1972 against the defendant-respondents with the averments that the plaintiff owned and possessed an 'ahata' (compound) No. 35 in Block 'B' measuring 72 1/2 x 50' in Gajsinghpur Mandi. Tehsil Padampur District Ganganagar. Adjoining the 'ahata' of the plaintiff there was another 'ahata' No. 36 in 'B' Block which belonged to Veerbhan. Veerbhan bequeathed 'ahata' No. 36 to Smt. Satyawati wife of Gopichand who is defendant No. 2 in the suit. According to the plaintiff there is a joint wall between 'ahata' No. 35 of the plaintiff and 'ahata' No. 36 of the defendant No. 2. This joint wall ...
Tag this Judgment!