Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Gram Panchayat, Village Kum Kalan vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 11 February, 2008

Dropati Kaur & Another vs Joint Director Panchayats on 27 November, 2013

In case of Gram Panchayat Nasrali v. State of Punjab, 1984 Pun LJ 113, the provisions of S. 4(3) of the Act fell for consideration, which provisions are in pari materia with sub-section(3) of S. 4 of the Act as applicable to Haryana. It was held by the learned Judge that the condition precedent for the application of sub-section(3) of Sailesh Ranjan 2013.12.18 12:47 S. 4 of the Act was the inclusion of the whole of the Sabha area I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.5600 of 1989 -5- within the Municipal limits and that by partial inclusion of Sabha area within Municipal limits, the Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat would not cease to be juristic persons and thus the property vesting in the Gram Panchayat, would continue to vest in the Gram Panchayat and not in the Municipal Committee. The properties remain the properties of the Gram Panchayat which owned and could not vest in the Municipal Committee."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Gram Panchayat Rasulpur vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 6 September, 2018

Since the question of the vires has been determined in the related proceedings and the question of law raised in the present petition being the same, we would unhesitatingly adopt the same course in view of ratio of judgment rendered in CWP no.4816 of 1996 titled as 'Gram Panchayat of Village Kum-Kalan vs. State of Punjab and others' decided on 7.4.2010 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 07-10-2018 01:20:34 ::: CWP no.10741 of 2002 (O&M) 2 The petitioner further states that there are other issues involved in the instant petition and we have heard him on that score.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vivek Khushlani vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 June, 2023

(g) (5) of the Act of 1961, clause (ii-a) was added, according to which the land which was allotted by the Rehabilitation Department on or before the 9th day of July, 1985, does not fall under the definition of `shamlat deh' and the said amendment was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Gram Panchayat of village Kum Kalan's case (supra). The learned Single Judge, while taking into consideration the said amendment and the judgment of this Court, has rightly set aside the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, cancelling the allotment of the land, which was admittedly made before 9th day of July, 1985, because such land does not fall under the definition of `shamlat deh'.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V Bahl - Full Document

Rajiv Singh vs The Chief Settlement Commissioner on 16 July, 2013

The validity of amendment in the said Act has been up-held by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4816 of 1996 titled as Gram Panchayat of Village Kum Kalan Vs. The State of Punjab and others decided on 7.4.2010. Admittedly, the allotment of the land in favour of the allottee was made prior to 9.7.1985 and as such the land allotted on or before the said date is excluded from the purview of Section 2 (g) of ' the Act', referred above."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P Singh - Full Document

Nagar Panchayat Begowal vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 January, 2014

However, as observed earlier, the vires of the amendment of Section 2(g)(ii-a) of the Act has already been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gram Panchayat of Village Kum-Kalan (Supra), the other course available to CWP No.21578 of 2010 (O&M) -9- the petitioner was to establish that the allottee was not entitled to the allotment de hors the amendment but looking from the admitted facts on record, the allotment has been made to the allottee on 27.12.1984, prior to the cut off date i.e. 9.7.1985, therefore, the provision of Section 2(g)(ii-a) of the Act would apply. Insofar as the allottee is concerned, they had also moved an application to the Financial Commissioner, where their case was pending, for allotment in terms of the Act of 2009.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R K Jain - Full Document

State vs 1. Vijender Dhawan on 27 March, 2010

14 In Ram Kalan vs. State 2009{4} JCC 2504 our high court has held that once there is doubt in the mind in respect of the possibility of the deceased having made a dying declaration to teach the applicant a lesson, which is corroborated by the testimony of her kins - it would not be appro- priate to convict the applicant solely on the basis of dying declaration" In the present case deceased is proved to be of hot temperament abstinate and was not in a good mood on 24-12-2004 . Her relatives were getting re- cording dying declaration . As such the dying declaration is not worthy of credence. There are glaring inconsistencies and contradictions between EX.PW-2\B and the oral dying declaration made by the deceased before PW-4 pradeep Kumar,pw-13 Sh. Bihari Lal and PW-14 Sh. Prakash Ka- poor .PW-4 Pradeep Kumar, PW-14 Sh. Prakash Kapoor are immediate neighborer of the accused person who immediately reached at the spot. As per them deceased told them that she had got burned while cooking food in the kitchen . This oral dying declaration of the deceased coupled with 13 I.D.No.02402R0162932005 complete absence of any kerosene oil or its residues as per CFSL report in the scalp hair and clothes of the deceased falsifies the version given in EX.PW-3/E and oral dying declaration of the deceased as stated by PW- 4,PW-13,PW-14 has gone unchallenged or cross examine these witness . Both the written and oral dying declaration are totally in confliction and are inconsistent and contradictory . He submits that it has been held in various judgments of courts contradictory dying declaration cannot be ac- cepted and have to be rejected. He submits that in view of the above said facts and circumstances , there is grave doubt about the genuineness of the dying declaration allegedly made by the deceased and deserve to be re- jected. As such the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge U/s 302/34 IPC, against accused Vijender Dhawan and Raj Kumar @ Raju. He submits that the prosecution evidence with regard to charge u\s 489A/34 IPC regarding demand of dowry and cruelty is totally inconsistent and falsified by several prosecution witnesses.Although pw-1 om prakash, father of the deceased, Pw-2 Smt. Krishna,mother of the deceased stated the prosecution case in examination -in-chef but during cross examination they did not allege anything incriminating against the accused persons. as such testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 highly contradictory in itself and these witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution, the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 deserve to be rejected.While in examination-in-chief Om Prakash made vague and general allegation regarding harassment and de- mand of washing machine but in cross examination he admitted that mar- riage between the parties had taken place in a cordial atmosphere and ac- cused person did not demand any dowry before or at the time of marriage . He admitted that Sonia was doing private service prior to her marriage and accused persons told that they were not interested in private service.Pw1 admitted that accused persons never demanded any washing machine or any dowry from him or from his wife and did not harass her 14 I.D.No.02402R0162932005 daughter in that account till her death and deceased never made any com- plaint to his parents regarding any demand or harassment. He has futher admitted that he had not disclosed the S.D.M about the demand of wash- ing machine or dowry or harassment by the accused person and his state- ment before the S.D.M was got recorded by his relatives and had simply signed it without going to its contents. He admitted making allegations re- garding demand of washing machine or dowry on the instigation of his rel- atives. PW-2 Smt. Krishna had also admitted in her cross examination that Sonia never informed about her informed about demand of any wash- ing machine or dowry or any harassment . She further admitted that hav- ing deposed in examination -in-chief with regard to harassment and cruelty to her daughter at instance of her relative.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next