The menace of encroachment on the Government land has assumed alarming proportion. Section 122 (1) (c) has been incorporated to curb this tendancy of encroachments made on Government land by unscrupulous persons. The Government land belongs t..

The menace of encroachment on the Government land has assumed alarming proportion. Section 122 (1) (c) has been incorporated to curb this tendancy of encroachments made on Government land by unscrupulous persons. The Government land belongs to all and all out efforts must be made to protect the same. PW-1 Yagya Dutt and PW-2 Ashok Kumar have categorically deposed that petitioner has encroached upon the Government land comprised in Khasra No.347/1 measuring 0-14-17 hectares. He himself has submitted an application for regularization. The finding of fact recorded by both the authorities cannot be interfered in the writ jurisdiction. There is neither any perversity nor any illegality in the orders passed by both the authorities below. The authorities below have correctly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties.

Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994

Consequently, taking into consideration the over-all facts of the case,. Judge Stated that he would direct that the suit for specific performance of contract, mandatory injunction and cancellation of gift deeds as well as permanent injunction bear..

Consequently, taking into consideration the over-all facts of the case,. Judge Stated that he would direct that the suit for specific performance of contract, mandatory injunction and cancellation of gift deeds as well as permanent injunction bearing No. 147/2012 (Old No.201/2007) titled as Basudev v. Narendra & Ors pending before Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan be disposed of within a period of eighteen months from the presentation of a certified copy of this order. Adjournment for the mere asking should not be granted. When any request is made for an adjournment it should be only entertained on an application in writing with reasons set out. The trial court may thereupon adjourn the matter as warranted only for good reason/s.  The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 

In the light of the above, let an affidavit be filed by the Director General, News Service Division, AIR, Akashwani, New Delhi for failure to appear in the court despite directions given by this court vide orders dated 10.01.2014 and 21.02.2014. A..

In the light of the above, let an affidavit be filed by the Director General, News Service Division, AIR, Akashwani, New Delhi for failure to appear in the court despite directions given by this court vide orders dated 10.01.2014 and 21.02.2014. Affidavit shall be filed within a period of three weeks. The court is also appalled to find that no prompt steps were taken by the said department to file reply to the review petition as the same is still not on record. Let the counsel take steps to place the said reply on record before the next date of hearing. Rejoinder, if any, be filed by the applicant within a period of four weeks. List this matter for final disposal on 23rd May, 2014. 

Needless to say, the competent authority will now only examine as to whether the petitioner should get full pay and allowances for the suspension period, and not, revisit its order which, inter alia, directs reinstatement of the petitioner and reg..

Needless to say, the competent authority will now only examine as to whether the petitioner should get full pay and allowances for the suspension period, and not, revisit its order which, inter alia, directs reinstatement of the petitioner and regularization of the said period, for the purposes of pensionary benefits. 12. The competent authority before passing the order would issue notice to the petitioner calling upon him as to whether he would want to have a say in the matter. After hearing the petitioner, the competent authority will be free to pass an order; albeit in accordance with law. Since the acquittal of the petitioner took place as far back as in 2009, the competent authority would expedite the hearing in the matter and pass an appropriate order in the matter. 13. The writ petition is thus allowed, in the aforesaid terms. The necessary consequences of this would be that order dated 04.04.2011 will also fall by the wayside. The said order, is also, accordingly, quashed.

Insofar as the plea of discrimination qua Mr. Kiran Pal is concerned, I find, no such plea was taken in the claim petition except a bald averment that a workman junior to the petitioner is continuing in the department without naming him. In the ab..

Insofar as the plea of discrimination qua Mr. Kiran Pal is concerned, I find, no such plea was taken in the claim petition except a bald averment that a workman junior to the petitioner is continuing in the department without naming him. In the absence of any specific averment and the name of the person so engaged, no relief could have been granted by the Industrial Tribunal. That apart, it has been observed by the Industrial Tribunal in its order dated May 02, 2013 as under: “The anagement witness has stated in his cross-examination that one Sh. Kiran Pal been continued in service. He was in freezing department whereas the workman was in the Battery Department. Sh. Kiran Pal was trainee technician and he was in deferent department, so his services have been retained. He was working at the time of this workman”. In view of the aforesaid observation of the Industrial Tribunal, even the last plea of the petitioner is unsustainable. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed.

Though this Court has sympathy for the physically handicapped, yet it is of the view that State largesse cannot be monopolised/cornered by a few individuals. In the present case, the petitioner is treating the allotment of a PCO Booth in favour of..

Though this Court has sympathy for the physically handicapped, yet it is of the view that State largesse cannot be monopolised/cornered by a few individuals. In the present case, the petitioner is treating the allotment of a PCO Booth in favour of her physically handicapped late husband as a family asset which can be inherited by her and her family members. Consequently, present writ petition and application being bereft of merit are dismissed. However, keeping in view the intent and objective of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, respondents are directed to allocate the PCO Booth/Tea Stall to be vacated by the petitioner, in accordance with the aforesaid Act, within a period of two months.

Dr. Naresh Gupta and Dr. S.Ramji had handed over the following certificate:- “The patient, Amit Ahuja, a case of hemophilia presently admitted in Lok Nayak Hospital is now in a stable condition without factor VIIa treatment and is maintainin..

Dr. Naresh Gupta and Dr. S.Ramji had handed over the following certificate:- “The patient, Amit Ahuja, a case of hemophilia presently admitted in Lok Nayak Hospital is now in a stable condition without factor VIIa treatment and is maintaining satisfactory progress. If at a later date, the patient would need factor VIIa, the hospital would provide the same.”

The aforesaid certificate is taken on record and the undertaking given by the Lok Nayak Hospital is accepted by this Court and Lok Nayak Hospital is held bound by the same.