Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-21-1977
Reported in : AIR1978MP46; 1978MPLJ156
Singh, J.1. Two principal questions arise for decision in this petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution: (1) Whether the President of a Municipal Council constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, continues in office after the Council stands dissolved by efflux of tune; and (2) whether the Government is bound to hold elections within a reasonable time from the date of dissolution of a Council.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that elections to the Municipal Council, Umaria, were held in May 1969. The petitioner, Mukutdhari Sharma, was elected as President to the Council on 22nd May 1969. The term of the President expired after two years on 21st May 1971; but as no election to fill up the vacancy was held, the petitioner continued as President. Four years, which is the normal term of a Council, expired on 21st May 1973. By a notification published in the Gazette dated 19th Sept. 1973, the term of the Council was extended from 21st May 1973 to 22nd Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-10-1977
Reported in : AIR1978MP218; 1978MPLJ562
Sharma, J.1. This is a petitionunder Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ setting aside the Award, dated 27-4-1970, given by Land Acquisition Officer, Gwalior in Land Acquisition Case No. 8/56/23/7 (Annexure-B). The petitioner has also challenged Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as being unconstitutional.2. The case of' the petitioner, a body corporate constituted under the Town Improvement Trust Act is that in the city of Gwalior near Jinsinala an open piece of land, commonly known as Garud Saheb ka Bada, 3 bigas and 5 biswas in area, was acquired for Housing Development Scheme. The petitioner has referred to the different notifications issued under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Act. Tahsildar, Gwalior obtained possession over the land and handed it over to the petitioner on 29-11-1957.3. Notification under Section 9 was also issued in the proceedings relating to the acquisition. Some persons, as have...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-19-1977
Reported in : AIR1978MP100; 1978CriLJ585; 1978MPLJ238
Shiv Dayal, C.J. 1. Devisingh the first appellant, had admittedly not attained the age of 16 years on the date of the offence. He was then a 'child' within the meaning of the definition contained in Section 2(c) of the M. P. Bal Adhiniyam, 1970 (No. 15 of 1970) (hereinafter called the 'Bal Adhiniyam'). He was tried for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302, Penal Code. Be was, along with three other accused, tried by the Sessions Judge, Seoni, who found him guilty of that offence. However, he was dealt with under Section 6 of the Bal Adhiniyam. 2. He preferred this appeal for his acquittal. When the appeal went before a Division Bench, the following question arose, which has been referred to us for opinion:-- 'Whether the exclusive jurisdiction conferred by the provisions of the Bal Adhiniyam, 1970, on Juvenile Courts to try a 'child' within the meaning of the definition contained in Section 2 (c) of the Adhiniyam for all offences, including those punishable with life impr...
Tag this Judgment!