Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkrishna Gujre vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 June, 2014
W.P.No.5863/2014
09/06/2014
Shri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for
respondents No.2 to 6.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioners inter alia seek a direction to the respondents to award them adequate compensation on account of acquisition of their land.
Admittedly, the land belonging to the petitioners have been acquired under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'Act') for construction of Over-Bridge. Under Section 3(G)(3) of the Act, the Commissioner has been appointed as an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute with regard to adequacy of the compensation .
In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioners seek leave of this Court to approach the Commissioner.
In view of the aforesaid submission, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioners approach the Commissioner with regard to their grievance, the Commissioner shall adjudicate the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law expeditiously.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) V.Judge RC/a 09.6.2014 W.P. No.7666/2014 Shri Lalji Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of interim relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petitions involving similar controversy have been entertained and an interim relief has been granted. In support of aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copies of orders dated 16.8.2013, 7.1.2014 and 14.3.2014 passed in W.P. No.14073/13, W.P. No.22014/13 and W.P. No.3226/14.
In view of aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and with a view to maintain parity, it is directed that petitioner shall be permitted to work on the post on which he was initially appointed, till next date of hearing.
Let the writ petition be listed for analogous hearing along with W.P. No.14073/13 and W.P. No.3226/14.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 Civil Revn. No.76/2014
Mr. A.K. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard on I.A. No.8029/14, an application for hearing the petition during summer vacation.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Also heard on I.A. No.3190/14.
On payment of process fee by registered post with AD., within a week, issue notice of aforesaid I.A. to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is residing in the house in question along with his family and in case the applicant is dispossessed, he shall suffer an irretrievable prejudice.
In view of aforesaid submission, it is directed that execution of the impugned decree in so far as it directs delivery of possession, shall remain stayed till next date of hearing.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Vacation Judge Loretta/a.
09.6.2014 W.P. No.7674/2014None for the petitioner.
Let the writ petition be listed after vacation.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.7689/2014
Shri Piyush Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Let the writ petition be listed before another Bench.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.7713/2014
Shri Sachin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Let the writ petition be listed in next week.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.7733/2014
None for the petitioner.
Let the writ petition be listed after vacation.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.7737/2014
Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Let the writ petition be listed on 16.6.2014.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.7739/2014
Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Let the writ petition be listed on 16.6.2014.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.7759/2014
Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Let the writ petition be listed on 16.6.2014.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.7774/2014
None for the petitioner.
Let the writ petition be listed after vacation.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.7671/2014
Shri A.Usmani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on I.A. No.6587/14. Taking into account the nature of proposed amendment and for the reasons stated therein, same is allowed. Let necessary amendment in the memo of petition be carried out within a period of three days.
List the writ petition on 16.6.2014 for orders on admission as well as for consideration of prayer for interim relief.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.7777/2014
None for the petitioner.
Let the writ petition be listed after vacation.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.7812/2014
None for the petitioner.
Let the writ petition be listed in next week.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.3277/2014
Shri S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.
With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 13.2.2014 passed by respondent No.4 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Anusuchit Jati Kanya Ashram Shala, Beohari to Government Primary School, Harijanpara, Block Jaisinghnagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been transferred five times within a span of three years and by the impugned order, he has been transferred to a distance of approximately 100 Kms. It is also submitted that in case the petitioner is required to carry out the order of transfer, it shall cause irretrievable prejudice. Learned counsel for the petitioner that with regard to his grievance, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondent No.3 namely the Deputy Commissioner, Tribal Development, Shahdol contained in Annexure P/8 dated 19.2.2014 and the aforesaid authority be directed to consider and decide the representation expeditiously.
On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents submits that suitable decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner shall be taken expeditiously, in accordance with law.
In view of aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4 namely the Deputy Commissioner, Tribal Development, Shahdol, to consider and decide the representation dated 19.2.2014 preferred by the petitioner contained in Annexure P/8, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
a. Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.3315/14
Shri Jitendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Government
Advocate for the respondents.
Heard on I.A. No.6997/14, an application for hearing the petition during summer vacation.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia has prayed for a direction to respondents No.2 to 4 to renew the lease granted to the father of the petitioner in respect of plots admeasuring 1083 Sq.ft.
When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter pertaining to renewal of lease is pending adjudication before the Additional Collector, Dindori since 2009 and he be directed to decide the application with regard to renewal of lease in light of the recommendation dated 30.11.2010 contained in Annexure P/3.
On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that suitable action in accordance with law shall be taken by the Additional Collector, Dindori.
In view of aforesaid submissions and as agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the Additional Collector, Dindori shall decide the application with regard to renewal of lease of the petitioner in light of the recommendation dated 30.11.2010 expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, by a speaking order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.3320/2014
Shri Sidharth Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on I.A. No.6911/14, an application for hearing the petition during summer vacation.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
The writ petition is admitted for hearing. On payment of process fee by registered post with AD., within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are carrying out the demarcation proceeding on misconstruction of the order passed in W.P. No.15954/13 dated 7.10.2013 and the demarcation has already been carried out several times.
In view of aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, it is directed that the demarcation, if any, carried out during the pendency of the writ petition shall be subject to result of the writ petition.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.3685/14
Shri M.P. Rajak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents.
With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the action of the respondents in issuing the revenue recovery certificate for recovery of an amount of Rs.2.75 Lacs from the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that being aggrieved by the aforesaid RRC, the petitioner has preferred an objection before the Tahsildar, Amarpatan, Distt. Satna namely respondent No.4, which is pending adjudication till day. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed decision laid down by the Division Bench in New Laxmi Oil Mills Vs. Bank of India and others , 1998(1) JLJ 154.
In view of aforesaid submissions and in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of New Laxmi Oil Mills (supra), the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4 to consider and decide the objection preferred by the petitioner by a speaking order expeditiously, before proceeding further with the matter.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.5358/2014
Shri Anoop Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on I.A. No.6852/14, an application for hearing the petition during summer vacation.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
The writ petition is admitted for hearing. On payment of process fee by registered post with AD., within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the premises belonging to the respondent No.4 Krishi Upaj Mandi does not fall within the purview of public premises, as no evidence was recorded under the Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1972.
In view of aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, it is directed that the execution of the impugned order of eviction shall remain stayed, till next date of hearing.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.7813/14
Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Let the writ petition be listed on 18.6.2014.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.5497/2014
Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to approach the appellate authority.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.5635/2014
Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Shobha Menon, learned senior counsel with Shri Rahul Choubey, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that she has filed reply to I.A. No.6937/14 today. However, the same is not on record. Office is directed to trace the same and place it on record.
Let the writ petition be listed for consideration of aforesaid I.A. on 16.6.2014.
Till 16.6.2014, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the accommodation in question.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.19987/2013
Shri J.P. Dhimole, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by an order dated 13.5.2011 passed by a Bench of this Court in W.P. No.6338/09(s).
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents prays for short adjournment in order to enable him to examine the aforesaid aspect.
As prayed, let the case be listed in next week.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.20110/2013
None for the petitioner.
Let the writ petition be listed after vacation.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.20550/2013
Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General prays for and is granted two weeks time to seek instructions in the matter and to file reply, if so advised.
Let the writ petition be listed on 23.6.2014.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.22012/2013
Shri Deependra Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.
Despite order dated 10.2.2014, no explanation has been offered with regard to completion of the process of election of the cooperative societies.
In view of order dated 10.2.2014, the Officer In-charge of the case is directed to remain present before this Court on 23.6.2014.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General during the course of the day.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.22450/2013
None for the petitioner.
Let the writ petition be listed after vacation.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 M.A. No.119/2014
None for the appellant.
Let the case be listed after vacation.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.21717/2013
None for the petitioner.
Let the writ petition be listed after vacation.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 S.A. No.192/14
Shri Amit Nagpal, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on I.A. No.3170/14.
On payment of process fee by registered post with AD., within a week, issue notice of the aforesaid I.A. to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents are trying to create third party interest in respect of the land in question.
In view of aforesaid submission and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot Vs. Baldev Dass, (2004) 8 SCC 488, it is directed that respondents shall neither create any third party right in respect of property in question nor shall alter the nature of the suit property in any manner whatsoever, till next date of hearing.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 F.A. No.222/14
Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on I.A. No.4989/14.
On payment of process fee by registered post with AD., within a week, issue notice of the aforesaid I.A. to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents are trying to create third party interest in respect of the land in question.
In view of aforesaid submission and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot Vs. Baldev Dass, (2004) 8 SCC 488, it is directed that respondents shall neither create any third party right in respect of property in question nor shall alter the nature of the suit property in any manner whatsoever, till next date of hearing.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 W.P. No.298/2014
Shri Atul Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Let the case be listed in next week.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 F.A. No.375/2014
Shri Himanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Let the case be listed in next week.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 M.Cr.C. No.7903/2014
Shri Sudip Ghoshal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.
Heard.
This application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested for offences punishable U/s.307/34 and 294 of the I.P.C. registered vide Crime No.147/2014 at Police Station Katni, Distt. Katni.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 2.3.2014. It is further submitted that the applicant has not assaulted the complainant and has been falsely implicated in the offence.
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the case diary, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the application for bail is allowed and it is directed that the applicant Vishal Jatav shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Katni.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 M.Cr.C. No.7895/2014
Shri Sandesh Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.
Heard.
This application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested for offences punishable U/s.363, 366, 376(2) of the I.P.C. as also U/s.6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered vide Crime No.105/2014 at Police Station Gwarighat, Jabalpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 19.4.2014 and the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the act in question. It is further submitted that the medical report does not support the prosecution case.
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that the applicant is in custody since 21.5.2014, I deem it proper to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the application for bail is allowed and it is directed that the applicant Abhishek Jaiswal shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Jabalpur.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Vacation Judge
09.6.2014 M.Cr.C. No.7887/2014
Shri Devesh Khatri, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.
Heard.
This application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested for offences punishable U/s.457 and 380 of the I.P.C. registered vide Crime No.351/2014 at Police Station Bagh Sewaniya, Distt. Bhopal.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid offence. It is further submitted that no overt-act has been attributed against the applicant, except the fact that he advised certain persons to commit theft in the house of the complainant.
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that the applicant is in custody since 21.5.2014, I deem it proper to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the application for bail is allowed and it is directed that the applicant Mohit Dubey shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Bhopal.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
a Judge
09.6.2014 M.Cr.C. No.7613/14
Shri Parag Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.763/09 registered at P.S. T.T. Nagar, Bhopal, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 186, 188, 332/149, 451 r/w Section 511 of I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that the applicant has not been named in the FIR. It is also submitted that the applicant is a student and is prosecuting his studies.
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the applicant.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having perused the case diary, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant Krishna Ghadge, he shall be released on anticipatory bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the police officer competent to arrest him subject to the conditions enumerated in Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
This order shall remain in force for a period of two months. During this period, the applicant shall apply for regular bail under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Vacation Judge a