0

“Legal Heirs Dispute: Court Rejects Revenue Court Jurisdiction, Advocates Civil Court Adjudication”

blog, Blog , , ,

Title: Narayan vs Heera Lal

Citation: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 205/2023

Coram: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Decide on: 22-08-23

Introduction:

The petitioner has filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking relief from the judgments and decrees dated 17.08.2022 (by the Board of Revenue) and 19.10.2011 (by the Sub-Divisional Officer). The petitioner requests the quashing of these judgments, the setting aside of the decrees, and the allowance of the suit filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners in the interest of justice. The petitioner also seeks any other just and proper order or direction from the Hon’ble Court based on the present facts and circumstances.

Facts:

The case involves a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Shri Madhulal, the father of the petitioners-plaintiffs, originally owned six parcels of land. After his death, the petitioners-plaintiffs sought to have their names entered into the revenue records based on intestate succession. The revenue authority initially refused the application.

Subsequently, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for the declaration of khatedari under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants. The suit was contested, with the respondents claiming to be the sole legal heirs. The Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) dismissed the suit, stating that the matter of legal heirs falls under the jurisdiction of civil courts.

The Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA) later set aside the SDO’s decision, recognizing the petitioners-plaintiffs as Khatedar of certain parcels. However, the Board of Revenue (BoR) overturned the RAA’s decision, upholding the SDO’s judgment. The petitioners argue that Natha marriage took place between Shri Madhulal and Smt. Dhapu, and both the petitioners-plaintiffs and respondent no.2 are legal heirs. They seek to have their names recorded in the revenue records based on intestate succession.

The respondents deny the existence of Natha marriage and contest the petitioners’ claim. They argue that the revenue court does not have jurisdiction in matters of legal heirs as specified in Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, relying on Section 242 of the same Act. The case involves complex issues related to succession, land ownership, and the jurisdiction of revenue courts, with each party presenting different interpretations of facts and legal provisions.

Judgement analysis:

In the judgment, the court notes that the petitioners-plaintiffs sought to record their names in revenue records based on intestate succession, but the concerned revenue authority refused. A suit was filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), who observed that the question of legal heirs falls under the jurisdiction of civil courts, not revenue courts. The Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA) allowed the petitioners’ appeal, emphasizing that the respondents failed to substantiate their claims of being legal heirs. However, the Board of Revenue (BoR) overturned the RAA’s decision, upholding the SDO’s order.

The court observes that while revenue courts can adjudicate khatedari rights, the issue of legal heirs is pivotal in this case. It highlights Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, stating that suits for determining legal heirs are not within the purview of revenue courts. The court also cites a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that disputes over title, especially those based on a will, should be addressed in civil courts before seeking mutation entries.

Consequently, the court dismisses the petition, stating that the matter of legal heirs should be presented before a civil court for proper adjudication before approaching revenue authorities for mutation. The judgment concludes that the petitioners are not entitled to relief, and all pending applications are disposed of.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

0

“Equitable Jurisprudence Prevails: Court Upholds Fairness and Consistency in Granting Employee Benefits”

Uncategorized , , , ,

Title: Secretary Administration Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam

 Limited vs Rashtriya Bijali Karmachari Union (INTUC) Rajasthan

Citation: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8015/2017

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

Decided on: 24-01-23

Introduction:

In this case, the petitioner, who is the employer, has filed a writ petition challenging the award dated 02.12.2016 issued by the Industrial Tribunal in Jaipur. The petitioner’s counsel argues that the Industrial Tribunal was tasked with adjudicating the claim of the respondent-workman concerning his entitlement to a basic salary of Rs.595 on 19.04.1985. The central question is whether the employee is entitled to relief if the specified salary was not paid.

Facts:

In this case, the petitioner-employer challenges an award issued by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, dated 02.12.2016. The petitioner argues that there is a jurisdictional error by the Industrial Tribunal in granting relief to the petitioner by holding him entitled to a basic salary of Rs.580/- per month, as no such reference was made for this specific relief. The petitioner contends that the Industrial Tribunal exceeded the scope of the reference, and such an act is impermissible in the eyes of the law. It is emphasized that the respondent-workman did not pray for the relief of a basic salary of Rs.580/- per month, and there were no pleadings supporting such a claim. The petitioner relies on the Bombay Gas Company Ltd. V. Gopal Bhiva case, stating that the Industrial Tribunal lacks the competence to go beyond the terms of the reference.

However, the respondent-workman argues that the Industrial Tribunal’s award does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is asserted that the relief granted is incidental, permissible under Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent contends that the Industrial Tribunal rightly considered the principle of equal pay for equal work concerning similarly situated employees and molded the relief accordingly.

The court, after hearing both parties, finds that the respondent-workman’s claim for a basic salary of Rs.595/- per month was rejected, and the Industrial Tribunal, after analyzing evidence, justified the grant of a basic salary of Rs.580/- per month based on the salaries of similarly situated employees. The court concludes that the Industrial Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction, and the relief granted was within the scope of the reference. The petitioner’s arguments regarding jurisdictional error and lack of pleadings are rejected, and the court upholds the Industrial Tribunal’s award.

Judgement analysis:

In this judgment, the court rejects the submissions of the petitioner’s counsel, emphasizing that if the court has already settled a controversy regarding entitlement to a particular pay scale for similarly situated employees, it would be unfair to deprive the respondent-workman of the benefit simply because he was not a party in the earlier litigation before the High Court.

The court acknowledges that the Industrial Tribunal considered relevant factors, including pleadings and evidence, in reaching the conclusion that the respondent-workman was entitled to the granted relief. It emphasizes that the award took into account the settled issue regarding the pay scale in question. The court distinguishes a cited judgment (Suresh Chandra vs. General Manager, Raj. State Bridge & Construction Corporation) where the Labour Court’s jurisdiction was deemed to be exceeded. In the present case, the court finds that if the respondent-workman raised a dispute, and the Labour Court, after reference by the State Government, found the relief justified based on the treatment of similarly situated employees, it did not exceed its jurisdiction.

As a result, the court dismisses the writ petition, and no costs are awarded. The judgment underscores the principle of fairness and consistency in granting benefits to employees based on settled issues and comparable cases.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

0

Madras High Court regarding the issue Person in Unauthorised Occupation Of Land Cannot Claim Protection Under Article 19, 21 If Eviction As Per Law.

Blog , , ,

Madras High Court regarding the issue Person in Unauthorised Occupation Of Land Cannot Claim Protection Under Article 19, 21 If Eviction As Per Law.

Title : Gunasekaran v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case No. : W.P.No.3002 of 2018

CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND     THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

Decided on : 23.11.2023.

Introduction

The petitioner seeks declaration that Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 [for brevity, “the Act of 1905”] is void and violates Articles 14, 19(1)(e) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Fact of the Case

Mr.M.Elango, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that Section 6 of the Act of 1905 is arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable. Right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The impugned Section 6 of the Act of 1905 takes away the right of residence of the petitioner and other persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of the operation of Article 13 of the Constitution of India, the impugned Section 6 of the Act of 1905 is deemed to be void. The Act of 1905 is a pre-constitutional Act and is not in conformity with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. The Governor has not granted any approval to the Act of 1905 after the Constitution came into force.

Case Analysis and Judgment

Once the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Act of 1905, and more particularly the same provision assailed by the petitioner, it will not be permissible to again consider the challenge to the same. The petitioner could not remotely show a semblance of right over the subject writ property. The procedure has been followed while evicting the petitioner. In the light of the above, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.3670 of 2018 is closed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written  by Nimisha Sunny

0
hc patna

A Order Has To Be Set Aside If It Goes Against The Principle Of Natural Justice: Patna High Court

Blog , , , ,

Citation: CWJC No.4833 of 2020

Decided On: 16-10-2023

Coram: Honourable The Chief Justice And Honourable Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy

Introduction:

The petitioner is aggrieved with the proceedings taken by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(4), Patna. Notice dated 24.09.2018 is issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as against the assessee, who is assigned to the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Jamshedpur. Admittedly, the assessee is assigned to Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Jamshedpur before which Officer, she also filed the Income Tax returns for the Assessment year 2016- 17, as is evident from. No further proceedings were taken by the Assessing Officer, who was the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Jamshedpur.

Facts:

The petitioner was then issued with notice dated 24.09.2018, in reply to which the petitioner specifically filed response dated 01.03.2019, along with supplementary counter affidavit. The petitioner questioned the jurisdiction and raised specific contentions against the allegations in the notice under Section 148. The petitioner specifically pointed out that there could be no proceedings taken by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(4) Patna.

The learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department referred to Section 124(3) and also the consolidation of matters done by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 6, Patna, who has overall jurisdiction of State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand. It is also specifically pointed out that the land, subject to a development agreement, based on which the notice was issued under Section 148 was located within the State of Bihar.

The Joint Commissioner seems to have transferred the file of the Assessee to the Income Tax Officer Ward 6(4) Patna, on the ground that the property in relation to which the addition is threatened, was located within the State of Bihar, that too inside the boundaries of Patna. Court, specifically noticed that Section 127 which clothes the Principal Director General, Director General, the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers sub- ordinate to him, whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers also sub- ordinate to him. However, the specific mandate in Section 127 is that the Assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter wherever it is possible to do so.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

There is no circumstance brought on record which made the extension of such an opportunity, which is also the statutory mandate, to be impossible in the facts of the present case. Obviously, the transfer was done behind the back of the petitioner. Court found no reason to uphold the order of assessment, which was passed pursuant to a notice issued on the wrong premise of a transfer made by the Commissioner without following the principles of natural justice, which is specifically made a mandate in the provision enabling such transfer. Hence, the assessment order passed and find the notice was set aside.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

0

Court Has No Need To Interfere When A Fair Inquiry Took Place Before Taking The Decision: Patna High Court

Uncategorized , , , ,

Citation: L.P.A No.534 of 2021

Decided on: 10-10-2023

Coram: Honourable The Chief Justice And Honourable Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy

Introduction:

The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the order and judgment dated 06.08.2021 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge in CWJC No. 1192 of 2020 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed.

Facts:

The appellant-petitioner was a PDS dealer at village in Ward No. 11, village-Panapur in the District of East Champaran. Vide notice contained in memo no. 373 dated 04.10.2018 issued under the signature of respondent Sub Divisional Officer, Areraj, East Champaran, the appellant- petitioner was directed to file show cause within a period of three days with respect to the inspection report dated 04.10.18. On 8.10.2018, the appellant-petitioner submitted the representation with a prayer to exonerate him from all the charges. It has been indicated that due to illness, he could not maintain the up-to-date register. He enclosed medical prescription to support the case.

Again vide notice contained in memo no. 384 dated 13.10.2018 passed by Responden, he was asked to file reply. On 22.10.2018, the appellant-petitioner submitted reply reiterating his earlier version. hereafter, vide an order as contained in memo no. 03 dated 27.10.2018 issued by the respondent, the PDS license no. 01/2016 of the appellant-petitioner was cancelled. This followed CWJC No. 13921 of 2019 by the appellant-petitioner which was disposed of vide an order dated 15.7.2019 directing the respondent District Magistrate, East Champaran to dispose of the appeal within sixty days.

The case of the appellant-petitioner before the Writ Court was that no proper opportunity was given to him before the order for cancellation of PDS license was passed. The second submission was that no beneficiary ever complained against him. Further, the document submitted by him was not at all considered and in that background, the orders need interference.

Court’s analysis and decision:

In his show cause filed on 08.10.2018 and 22.10.2018, this non supply of enquiry report was never agitated and thus it was concluded that a false plea is being raised in the writ petition with mala fide intention of obtaining favourable order, which was also deprecated.

The Court has further taken note of the fact that the respondents gave opportunity to the appellant-petitioner before arriving at a conclusion for cancellation of the PDS license. Thus the court did not interfere with the orders dated 27.10.2018 and 29.11.2019 passed by the SDO, Areraj as well as the District Magistrate, East Champaran respectively.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

1 … 30 31 32 33 34 … 46