0

Land Dispute Resolved: Court Upholds BOR Decision, Emphasizes Legal Precedents and Rejects Petitioner’s Claims Under Article 227

Blog , , , ,

Title: Amar Chand S/o Moolchand and ORS. Vs State of Rajasthan and ORS.

Citation: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9798/2016

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Decided on: 29/03/2023.

Introduction:

The current petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 29.06.2016, issued by the Board of Revenue (BOR) Ajmer in Revision/6763/2011. This order favored the respondents in their revision petition. The case revolves around Mutation Entry No. 192 dated 20.04.2002, issued by the Gram Panchayat in Sandeda, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

Facts:

The current legal matter involves a dispute over a piece of land measuring 29 Bigas 11 Biswa, claimed by both the petitioners and respondents. The petitioners argue that the land belonged to their ancestors, presenting evidence to support their claim. The legal proceedings include an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Piplu, Tonk, which was initially allowed, leading to a remittance of the case to the Tehsildar for fresh consideration. Subsequent appeals and revisions followed, with the Board of Revenue ultimately reversing the earlier decisions in favor of the respondents. The petitioners assert that the Board of Revenue’s decision was based on incomplete consideration, highlighting applications they filed indicating the revision’s ineffectiveness due to the successful challenge of the Tehsildar’s order. They also point out the death of some non-applicants, leading to the abatement of the revision.

In response, the respondents argue that the Civil Court’s decision in Suit No. 60/2003 validated their status as legal successors and upheld the validity of mutation entries. They contend that the orders challenged in the revision become irrelevant in light of the Civil Court’s findings. The respondents emphasize the sub judice nature of the matter before the Board of Revenue, downplaying the significance of the Tehsildar’s order and the mutation entry for legal rights.

The court, in considering the case under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, emphasizes the limited scope of interference and the need for sparing use of this jurisdiction. The judgment underscores that such powers are not meant to convert the High Court into an appellate authority but to ensure the subordinate courts adhere to the law. The court refers to precedents, including the principle that orders below are presumed justified if passed after due consideration of facts and materials on record.

Judgement analysis:

In this judgment analysis, the court addresses a dispute over a piece of land by considering the facts and legal arguments presented. The court notes that the Civil Suit No. 60/2003 for declaration was decided against the petitioners by the Trial Court, with specific issues related to the legal successor of the deceased Veerumal and the validity of mutation entries. The Board of Revenue (BOR) took this into account and concluded that once the Trial Court had decided these issues, the matter before the BOR was adjudicated. The court rejects the petitioner’s argument that the Tehsildar’s denovo investigation and fresh order should be considered. It cites legal precedents, emphasizing that mutation entries do not determine land title and are fiscal in nature. The court agrees with the BOR’s reliance on the Civil Court’s decision in Suit No. 60/2003, which addressed title and succession issues concerning Veerumal, and dismisses the significance of any subsequent order by the Tehsildar.

The judgment underscores that the BOR’s decision was well-reasoned, in accordance with legal principles, and did not violate natural justice. The court supports the BOR’s conclusion and finds no grounds for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits, and any 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 full judgement

0

“Judicial Verdict Upholding Rigorous Standards: Act for Recognizing Universities Challenged, Court Stresses Need for Established Institutions and Rejects Petitioners’ Claims.”

Blog , ,

Title: Mahendran Kumar Sober and ORS. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: WPS No. 2724 of 2013

Coram: HON’BLE Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

Decided on: 10-11-2023.

 

Introduction:

The case involves two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to annul the order dated July 27, 2013, issued by the Development Commissioner, CG, Raipur. The order pertains to appointments on the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) in the Department of Rural Engineering Services. The petitioners are urging the court to set aside this order and instruct the respondent authorities to revise the merit list by including experience marks. Subsequently, they seek the fulfillment of vacancies in accordance with the recruitment rules.               

Facts:

The case involves applicants responding to an advertisement by the Department of Rural Engineering Services, CG, Raipur, for positions including Sub Engineer (Civil). The petitioners, possessing the required qualifications and experience, applied for the positions. The merit list, initially including their names, did not assign experience marks against the advertised conditions. Subsequently, an order on July 27, 2013, by the Development Commissioner, CG, Raipur, omitted the petitioners’ names. The petitioners argue that the recruitment process violated constitutional articles, as eligibility criteria were allegedly changed, and transparency was lacking.

On the respondents’ side, it’s contended that the petitioners were deemed ineligible due to obtaining their degrees from JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University through distance education. The authorities argued that this mode of education was not recognized for technical posts, and an order dated November 7, 2013, supported this decision. The respondents also raised concerns about the university’s validity, citing restrictions on distance education outside the state of Rajasthan.

Judgement analysis:

The judgment concludes that the impugned Act, which allows the notification of a university based on a proposal without actual establishment and legislative backing, does not align with regulations. It argues that such universities, lacking infrastructural facilities and qualified teachers, are unlikely to attract private capital or provide quality education. The court emphasizes the need for established institutions offering high-quality education rather than universities without teaching facilities.

The court further notes that the respondent-state did not recognize respondent No.4/University as a deemed university, leading to the disqualification of the petitioners for the Sub Engineer (Civil) post. It supports this decision based on legal principles and previous judgments. The court dismisses the writ petitions, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioners and upholding the decision of the respondent authorities.

“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

Preserving Liberty: Court Strikes Down Non-Bailable Warrants, Emphasizing Fundamental Rights and Procedural Fairness

Blog , ,

Title: M/s Yoon Automobiles Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs M/s Bhilai Engineering Corporation Limited

Citation: CRMP No. 2584 of 2023

Coram: Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Decided on: 10-11-23.

 

Introduction:

The case involves a group of individuals (petitioners) against whom non-bailable warrants have been issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in Durg. The charges stem from complaint cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), indicating a legal action related to dishonor of negotiable instruments such as checks. The issuance of non-bailable warrants suggests the seriousness of the legal proceedings against the petitioners in these cases.

Facts:

The case involves complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the petitioners face non-bailable warrants issued by the trial court. The complaints were filed for dishonor of cheques amounting to Rs. 25,00,000 each, issued by the petitioners in favor of the complainant. The petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were filed seeking permission to present defense evidence, especially for those petitioners who are not directors of the company mentioned in the cases.

During the proceedings, applications under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. were submitted, seeking an adjournment. However, the trial court rejected these applications, leading to the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioners. In response, the petitions challenging these orders were filed.

The counsel for the petitioners argues that, according to the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) 10 SCC 51, non-bailable warrants should not be issued at the first instance in summon cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Instead, the court should issue notices and bailable warrants before resorting to non-bailable warrants, especially when the accused or their counsel are present before the court. The petitioners seek relief based on these legal arguments.

Judgement analysis:

The judgment, considering the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the procedural aspects, deems the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioners as legally unsustainable. It emphasizes that the liberty of individuals, a fundamental and inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.

The court notes that the learned Trial Court did not provide any rationale for issuing non-bailable warrants when the counsel for the petitioners was present, and applications under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. were submitted. Consequently, the court sets aside the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class issued on November 3, 2023. It allows the applications under Section 317 of Cr.P.C., directing the petitioners to appear before the Court below on the next date of the hearing. All the petitions are thereby 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

No Relief Can Be Granted When There Is No Intervention Of Law Needed: Patna High Court

Blog , , ,

Title: Bhanu Kumar v The Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Home, Government of India.

Citation: CWJC No.11574 of 2021

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah

Decided On: 03-11-2023

Introduction:

The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-

  • That this is an application for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner as constable (G.D.) in Central Para Military forces from due date and award cost of these proceedings.

Facts:

The learned counsel for the Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi has submitted by referring to paragraph no.6 of the counter affidavit, filed in the present case that the name of the petitioner could not find place in the list of finally recommended candidates on account of him having obtained less marks, i.e. 78.58 marks, than the marks obtained by the last selected candidates i.e. 80.29 marks (cut off marks) in the Unreserved (UR) category, a fact which has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

Since the fact is undisputed that the petitioner could not find place in the list of finally recommended candidates on account of him having obtained less marks, than the marks obtained by the last selected candidates. And since the petitioner has obtained less marks than the cut off marks, no relief can be granted to him. Hence the writ petition was dismissed.

“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 SharmaClick here to view judgement

0

If Document Has Not Been Provided Either By The Inquiry Officer Or By The Disciplinary Authority Failure Will Fall On The Disciplinary Committee: Patna High Court

Blog , , , ,

Citation: CWJC No.1118 of 2020

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman

Decided On: 02-11-2023

Introduction:

The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order contained in Memo No.3839 dated 30.04.2019 passed by respondent, by which minor punishment has been inflicted upon the petitioner relating to (i) Censor and (ii) reduction to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay for a period of two years without cumulative effect. The further prayer made in the present writ petition is also for setting aside the appellate order contained in Memo No.3405 dated 19.09.2019 issued by respondent by which the original punishment order dated 30.04.2019 has been affirmed.

Facts:

The petitioner was appointed as Co-operative Extension Officer and submitted his joining on 08.11.1989 being his first posting at Motihari. During the relevant period in the year 2010 he was posted as Block Development Officer and his services was deputed to the Rural Development Department. when he was posted at Naubatpur then a show-cause notice was issued vide letter No.8119 dated 23.09.2016 by respondent and he was directed to file a show cause against the charges framed by the District Magistrate. In compliance of the said letter, the petitioner has filed his show cause on 03.10.2016 denying the charges and a categorical pleading has been taken by him that inquiry was conducted by District Statistics Officer behind his back and he has denied all the charges alleged against him.

The petitioner further submits that disciplinary authority has issued an order contained in Memo No.9338 dated 09.11.2016, by which it was decided to conduct the disciplinary proceeding against him under the CCA Rules, 2005. It was categorical direction of the disciplinary authority that inquiry officer has to conduct the inquiry and submit a report under Rule 17(23) of the C.C.A. Rules, 2005. Petitioner further submits that in the light of the said Memo No.9338 dated 09.11.2016, the proceeding has to be initiated in accordance with law as laid down in the C.C.A. Rules, 2005, but in complete violation of the said Rule punishment order was passed and communicated to him vide Memo No.3839 dated 30.04.2019.

Rules, 2005, which is subject to the provisions of Rule 18(3) of the C.C.A. Rules, 2005, then in that case all procedure applicable to the major penalty has to be followed. But here in the present case no such procedure has been followed and, hence, the entire departmental proceeding as well as its finding are bad-in-law. Counsel of the State He submits that there is a categorical finding of the disciplinary authority that the delinquent has accepted that irregularity has taken place in the distribution of diesel. But he has thrown responsibility on the deficiency of Supervisor and requested that the Panchayat Secretary should be held guilty.

Counsel also submits that the delinquent had also tried to delay this matter on the ground of non-production of the demanded documents, but the said documents/evidences can be obtained under R.T.I. immediately and due to these two reasons the disciplinary authority holds the charges to be true and correct and had imposed punishment.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

If document has not been provided either by the inquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority even upon repeated demand, in that case the delinquent is supposed to obtain under R.T.I. is also not correct position of law. The C.C.A. Rules, 2005 is very clear on this point that it is the duty of the disciplinary authority to provide all the documents, which is going to be proved or which is the base of the charge to the delinquent as per Rule 17(3) of C.C.A. Rules, 2005. In absence of those documents even after repeated demand, the fault shall be of the disciplinary authority or inquiry officer. Hence the court decided that the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have to be 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

1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9