Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(2)WLC391; 2002(5)WLN136
Madan, J.1. Maharao Brij Singh, Ex-Ruler of Kota has sought a writ of certiorari in this petition for : (1) quashing & setting aside an order dated 26.12.96 (Annex.22); (2) holding (a) survey done by the defence authority and (b) declaration of land being short fall area & Sawai Chak, as void and unconstitutional; and further sought a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to (i) refund a sum of Rs. 14,13,127/- (already deducted) plus Rs. 1,50,330/- (deposited by him) and (ii) to pay admitted recurring compensation amount without any deduction in respect of a requisitioned land situated at Umaid Bhawan Palace Kota recognised as official residence of the petitioner.2. Reducing chequered history of facts having been complexed, only facts relevant for the controversy are epitomised in a concise manner. Total campus area of official residence of the petitioner- Umaid Bhawan Palace is 973 acres out of which 918.26 acres (2295 bighas & 13 biswas) were requisitioned by the Collector K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(2)WLN186
Mr. Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. These two writ petitions are raising common issue of law, and therefore, the same are being heard and decided together.3. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1554/1991 a suit was filed by respondent No. 1 to 3 and heirs of Chand Singh respondent No. 4 to 8 against the petitioners Dara Singh and Indar Singh for partition of agricultural property held by one Sundar Singh. Petitioners as well as respondent No. 1 to 3 and Chandan Singh were the sons of Sundar Singh. Sundar Singh is alleged to have executed a will in favour of the petitioners bequeathing his entire agricultural land admeasuring about 48 Bighas in favour of the petitioners. The plaintiffs respondents have challenged the authority of Sundar Singh to 'execute will and divert the ordinary rule of intestate succession. Ultimately, the Board of Revenue while affirming the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority has held that the property in question was self acquired property ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(4)WLC591
Balia, J.1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1996 and is having its registered office at New Delhi and a brewery at Daruheda, District Rewadi in State of Harayana. In favour of the petitioner, the respondent State of Rajasthan parted with its exclusive privilege to vend in wholesale excisable articles manufactured by it in the State of Rajasthan at village Ramchan-drapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur for the financial year 1998-99, the period of which was to expire on 31st March, 1999.2. The petitioner company had commenced operation in the year 1993 and the bonded warehouse was also established in Rajasthan in 1993. The petitioner had continued its operations under the licence until 1996. Thereafter, State of Harayana had imposed prohibition in that State. As a result, the manufacturing activities of the petitioner stood closed. However, when the State of Haryana revoked the prohibition in April, 1998, the petitioner restarted its manufacturing process and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007(2)WLN440
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The Division Bench of this court (Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.R. Yadav and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Godara, as his lordship then was) considered the following prima facie substantial and intricate questions as of general importance in these appeals:1. Whether provision for special Appeals can be said to substitute of letters patent after enforcement of the Constitution?2. Whether Special Appeal is maintainable only against those matters which originally originate in the High Court with an avowed object to check and balance?3. Whether provision relating to life of an ordinance enshrined under Government of India Act, 1935 and thereafter under the Constitution are applicable to the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. If so, its effect in. filing Special Appeals after expiry of six months from the date of insurance of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949?4. Whether Special Appeals can be filed under Section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 even in those procee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2000(2)WLC524
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J. 1. A large number of writ petitions have been filed challenging the Constitutional validity of the provisions of Rule 73 of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955, as amended vide Notification dated 26-2-1977, being substantive ultra-vires and for quashing the order dated 1-3-1997 issued by the Inspector General of Stamps providing, the applicability of the amendment even in pending revisions. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners purchased a piece of agricultural land measuring 20 Biswas comprise of Aaraji No. 1028 at village Rayala, district Bhilwara, for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/-. The said document was presented before the Registering Authority (respondent No. 3) for registration. However, the Authority took the view that the sale-deed, purported to have been made of an agricultural land, was in fact, sale deed of a commercial plot and the value of the land in dispute was required to be computed at the commercial rate and, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2000Raj416; 2000(4)WLC412
ORDER1. By this group of writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 19(g), 19(gg) and Proviso (ii) of Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 1999, All the writ petitions are disposed of by common judgment. 2. On 17-1-2000, one of the petitions came up for admission and a notice was given to the learned Advocate General. The case was posted for final hearing on 27-1-2000. Mr. Mahesh Bora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that as the State has not filed reply, the petitioner is entitled to interim relief i.e. stay of offending provisions providing disqualification to contest election. Mr. Sagar Mal Mehta, learned Advocate General, submits that he is prepared to argue the petition finally without filing the reply. In view of this, we have taken up the group of writ petitions for final hearing at admission stage. 3. The Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2000Raj180
1. The State has preferred this misc. appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') challenging the judgement and decree dt. 16-7-1996 passed by the District Judge Jhalawar, whereby deciding objections of the State tothe application of the respondent M/s Navabharat Construction Co. (for short 'the Company') of claiming compound interest, the learned District Judge Jhalawar awarded simple interest @ 15% p.a. on the original award of Rs. 29,96,060/- from the date 16-7-1996 of its order till realization and further ordered to pass a decree entitling the respondent Company to recover whatever its claim granted under Award dt. 29-5-1995 from the State and also make Award amount a part of the decree. The decree passed is reproduced as under :--'With reference to the Award by Shri V. K. Gupta dt. 29-5-1995 the decree is passed asbelow :-- (i) An amount of Rs. 29,96,060/- (Twenty nine lakhs, ninety six thousands sixty only) will be paid by the non applicant for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1998Raj165; 1998(1)WLC277
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. Petitioner was running the business of Carver Ivory, popularly known as Mammoth Ivory under the license as issued by the State which license stood renewed from year to year. There are certain restraints on his business which have been provided under the Wild Lite (Protection) Act. It is stated by him that because of certain amendments made in Sections 5, 27, 33, 34, 35 and 37 vide Act No. 44 of 1991 in the aforesaid Act, his livelihood has been effected and exercising powers under Section 49 of the Amended Act, he has been informed vide Annexure-4 dated 23-12-1991 to the effect that the import of ivory has been banned and, therefore, the petitioner is restrained from dealing with ivory in any and whatsoever manner subsequent to 29-2-1992. The letter Annexure-4 has given a cause of action to the petitioner for challenging the amended sections of Act 44 of 1991. It is stated by the petitioner that the provisions of the amended law do not and cannot have effect of pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : I(1999)DMC121; 1998(2)WLC12; 1997(2)WLN646
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The wife-Smt. Santosh has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of divorce, dated April 29, 1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalore, under Section 13(1-A) of the Act on the ground of non-compliance of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights for a period of more than one year.2. The factual position does not appear to be in dispute. The marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu custom and rites in the year 1970, and they lived at Jalore. From their wedlock there is no issue. In the year 1980, the wife went to her parent's house at Bikaner and when she did not return to her matrimonial home, the husband-respondent filed a petition in the Court of District Judge, Jalore for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 alleging that the wife had fully deserted him without any lawful excuse. This petition was filed on Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1999)IIILLJ810Raj; 1998(1)WLC1; 1997(2)WLN658
M.G. Mukherji, C. J. 1. The reference is at the instance of the learned single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6345/ 1992 and S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3784/1993. In the first writ application filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ('RSRTC' for short hereinafter) the award dated December 3, 1991 as passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara in Labour Case No. 9/1991, formerly numbered as 39/1987 has been impugned by the RSRTC whereby the learned Judge, Labour Court having found the order of termination dated October 8, 1994 to be unsustainable directed reinstatement of the workman Gopal Singh treating his case to be one of continuous employment and observed that the said Gopal Singh would be entitled to 50% of his backwages till the date of the award and would be entitled to full wages thereafter. His two annual grade increments were withheld. The, RSRTC was also declared to be entitled to deduct a sum of Rs. 8000/- to which extent it sustained as a loss on accoun...
Tag this Judgment!