Displaying Queries 70 - 80 of 4333 in 434 pages
|Filter Query :
asked On 08 May 2013 at 07:52
1. Whether a married women borne before 1956 (i.e. before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956)and married after 1956 has got the right to claim the share in the ancestral property.
2.Whether a married women borne before 1956 (i.e. before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956)and married before 1956 has got the right to claim the share in the ancestral property.
I may add that the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2004 entitles a female to have her share in the ancestral property.
asked On 07 May 2013 at 20:14
good evening all!
how to obtain salary details of a govt employee using RTI? how to go about it?
asked On 07 May 2013 at 18:31
respected experts plz help me
husband living at delhi had had moved a pitition in the district court at delhi that his wife had withdrawn from his society without reasonable cause and hence a decree for RCR u/s 9 be passed
on the other side wife averred that she has withdrawn from the society of her husband to seek employment which is her fundamental right and her withdrawal is for reasonable cause and she further pleaded that she was not deserted her husband rather her husband has deserted her and she moved counter petition in the district court at amritsar for decree for RCR MY QUESTION IS whether the district court have jurisdiction over this matter if yes then plz justify it or if no then also why?
plz help me
asked On 07 May 2013 at 17:45
I need a piece of advice pl.
We got married as per hindu rituals and again it was registered in a court in Delhi.
However, in 2002, we had some difference, I left the house and my wife filed a divorce application. I did not receive any summon and finally her request was accepted ex-party.So we were legally divorced. However, in 2002 itself everything was reconciled and we started living together.
Though, legally, we are divorced to each other but we are one, sharing and caring everything with each other and living a happy life. Now, we want to set the things right. I want to know what is the best alternative. Shall we do a formal marriage again in a temple ( though we are shy of doing that and would like to avoid ). OR get the marriage registered in the court again. OR that "ex-party decision" of the court "divorcing us" can be quashed.
Kindly give your considered views. Please suggest the easiest and the economical way out.
With best regard,
asked On 06 May 2013 at 21:58
on coming to understand that a trespasser had created forged documents using false survey number had applied for electrical connection quoting my survey number and in my vacant residential land, I had immediately written to the Assistant Engineer of T.N.E.B not to provide any electrical connection in the name of the trespasser who was trying to grab my land with false documents.I had enclosed copies of all my documents, the vacant land tax receipt, my police complaints against the trespasser and the F.I.R filed against him. Accordingly,the A.E also refused permission to the trespasser citing these grounds - immediately, the trespasser had filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court in which he had deliberately dragged my uncle(When I had launched all the objections as the owner of the land) who is not at all in any way involved in this and also the A.E. T.N.E.B as respondents.
Under normal judicial process, the writ itself ought to have been dismissed by the court due to the wrong person involved rather than me, but surprisingly the judge had taken up the matter and passed a very ridiculous order which states that "the petitioner(trespasser)in no way established his title rights over the disputed property". However it surprisingly instructs the Asst.Engineer, T.N.E.B to use discretion as to whether a temporary electrical connection could be granted or not because any essential service like an electrical connection is the basic right of any individual under Section 27(2)of Essential Services Act and this being so, the trespasser is entitled for an electrical connection - the judgement of an High Court Judge is all the more ridiculous because, at the very start of his judgement the judge has observed that the petitioner(trespasser) has not established his title right over the property - This being the case, how he can be given such a service that too in a property that belongs to me?? - The judgement should have been that I as the owner of the property should not be denied such a right!!!
More surprising and shocking is that the judge concludes his judgement by stating that the petitioner(trespasser)cannot claim any ownership or possession of the property merely due to receiving a temporary electrical connection in his name.
Does it not go to show the extent of rot in our judicial system in which such a ridiculous and laughable judgement could be passed by an High Court Judge???!!!!!!!!
I understand that I have an opportunity to appeal against this judgement at Madras High Court itself.
I would like to know from eminent jurists in this forum as to what course of action I must take to get this judgement reversed - I am sure you all agree with me.
Dr Sangh Mittra
asked On 05 May 2013 at 17:25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CWP No.15150 of 2010
Date of decision: 05.05.2011
Smt.Neelima Batra and others
The State of Haryana and others
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Present: Mr.Raghvinder Singh, Advocate for
Mr.R.D.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr.J.S.Toor, Addl.A.G. Haryana
Mr.Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate for HUDA
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
This writ petition has been filed by a widow and her minor
children. It is case of the petitioners that their predecessor in interest Sunil
Batra purchased ten biswa of land vide sale deed No.2320 dated 18.12.1989
and thereafter with the hard earned money, he had constructed a house over
Sunil Batra died on 1.6.2005 in a road accident, leaving behind
the petitioners as his legal heirs.
It is their further case that the plot owned by the petitioners is situated in a planned developed colony and many others
had also constructed houses much before the time when process to acquire
that land was initiated.
In this writ petition, it is prayer of the petitioners that a notification dated 26.9.2007 (P7), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act), proposing to acquire 106.64 acres
CWP No.15150 of 2010 of land in village Nangal Sodia along with huge chunk of land for a public purpose, namely, ‘for the development and utilization of land for residential area for Sect or 2, Part 3, 4 & 5 Pinjore’ be quashed. Further prayer is to quash a declaration, issued on 25.9.2008 under Section 6 of the Act (P11),
finally deciding to acquire the land in question, including land of the
It is not in dispute that as per stipulation made in the
notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, the petitioners filed
objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Paragraph Nos.2 to 7 of the
objections read thus:-
“2. That the objectors are owners and in possession of the house constructed over the land measuring 10 biswas
comprised in khewat / khatauni No.11/12, Khasra No.126/66(12-7) to the extent of 10/247 the share = 10 biswas, situated at village Naggal Sodhian, tehsil Kalka,
3. That Shri Sunil Kumar Batra son of Shri Harbhagwan Batra purchased the land measuring 10 biswas from his
hard earned money from its previous owner vide sale deed No.63 dated 18.12.1989 for a valuable sale considerations. Shri Sunil Kumar Batra constructed the house over the said plot by spending huge amount over
4. That Shri Sunil Kumar expired on 1.6.2005 in a road
accident and after his death, the objectors inherited the
house in question as his natural heirs.
CWP No.15150 of 2010
5. That upon the land in question the objectors has constructed his residential house and whole of the holdings of the objectors are being used as residential
house, therefore, the very nature of the land becomes as constructed house and, therefore, could not be acquired
6. That the family of the objectors is residing in the house in question and the very acquisition of this land would
result into the wanderless the whole of the family.
7. That the house of the objectors is situated in the land in dispute. Ration Card has also been issued to the
objectors by the authority concerned on this address.”
The petitioners have specifically stated that 10 biswa of land was purchased on 18.12.1989. A copy of the sale deed has also been put on record as Annexure P1. (In the written statement, sale deed has not been disputed). In the objections, it is further stated that the petitioners have
constructed their house in the land in dispute and are residing therein.
Despite those objections, land of the petitioners was ordered to be acquired,
whereas relief was given to many other land owners, by releasing their land
with construction. Under the circumstances, the petitioners came to this
Court by filing this writ petition. Upon notice, reply has been filed.
Paragraph No.3 (preliminary objections) of the reply, filed at the instance of
respondent Nos.1 and 2, reads thus:-
“3. That the petitioners filed objection u/s 5A of the Land
Acquisition Act within prescribed period of limitation, same
were duly heard on 27.5.2008 to 29.5.2008. After providing
proper opportunity of hearing the Land Acquisition Collector
CWP No.15150 of 2010
made a report on individual objections and sent to Govt. for
final decision. After receiving the report from the Govt. the
declaration u/s 6 was issued. In view of releasing point the
land/ construction which could be adjusted in the plan has
been left out from the acquisition after considering the
objections u/s 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, the land/
construction which could not be adjusted in the plan has been
acquired. The land/ construction measuring 31.65 acres of
land was released after considering the objections u/s 5A of
the Land Acquisition Act and the land measuring 105.81 acres
was not included in the notification u/s 6 which has already
been acquired for Kaushalya Dam. The petitioners filed
objections u/s 5A of the Land Acquisition, but the said house of
the petitioners was under construction at the time of issuance
of notification u/s 4 the neither the petitioners nor the
predecessors of the petitioners were owner as per revenue
record maintained by this office, even though the Land
Acquisition Collector recommended to release being developed
as housing society, but the recommendation of the Land
Acquisition Collector is not binding upon the Govt.”
In this paragraph, it is stated that the petitioners’ house was
under construction, whereas in reply on merits, in paragraph Nos.3, 8 and
10, it was virtually admitted that house was in existence at the time when
notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued and the Land Acquisition
Collector had recommended its release. Contents of paragraph Nos.3, 8 and
10, read thus:-
CWP No.15150 of 2010
“3. That in reply to para no.3 of writ petition it is submitted
that as per revenue record maintained by this office neither the
petitioners nor the predecessor of the petitioners were owner
at the time of issuance of notification u/s 4 dated 26.9.2007.
Hence, they are not entitled to challenge the acquisition
proceedings. Rest of the contents of this para are denied for
want of knowledge.
8. That the contents of para no.8 of writ petition are
admitted to the extent that the petitioners filed their objections
u/s 5A of the Land Acquisition Act and the Land Acquisition
Collector recommended to release being developed as housing
society, but the recommendation of the Land Acquisition
Collector is not binding upon the Govt. Rest of the contents of
this para are matter of record.
10. That in reply to para no.10 of writ petition it is
submitted that the construction which was existing at the time
of issuance of notification u/s 4 has been recommended to
release from the acquisition. Rest of the contents of this para
are denied for want of knowledge.”
At the time of arguments, the State counsel, by making
reference to the contents of paragraph No.3 on merits, tried to raise an
objection that as the petitioners were not shown owners in the revenue
record at the time when a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued,
as such, writ petition filed by them is not maintainable.
We feel that the argument raised is frivolous and is liable to be
rejected. In their objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act, the
petitioners have clearly stated that Sunil Batra had purchased the land vide
CWP No.15150 of 2010
sale deed dated 18.12.1989 and then had constructed a house thereon, in
which, they are residing. Copy of the sale deed was also produced before
the Land Acquisition Collector. It is also on record that the Land
Acquisition Collector recommended release of their house.
Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that by
not releasing their property, a discrimination has been done with the
petitioners because relief was granted, by releasing land, to many other land
owners of the adjoining area. To press his claim, reliance has been placed
on ratio of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Ram and
another v. The State of Haryana and others, JT 2010 (2) SC 235.
We feel that the argument raised is perfectly justified. The
petitioners are the owners of a very small piece of land, which, their
predecessor in interest had purchased in a planned colony. After looking
into the contents of the reply filed, objections under Section 5-A, raised by
the petitioners and also photographs put on record, we are satisfied that the
house was in existence when notification under Section 4 of the Act was
issued. In the reply filed, the respondents have clearly admitted that in this
village 31.65 acres of land with construction was released from acquisition
by taking note of objections filed by the land owners under Section 5-A of
the Act. We are surprised as to why that very relief was not granted to the
petitioners. It appears that they were denied their due only on account of a
fact that their names were not mentioned in the revenue record. We feel that
it was not a valid ground to decline relief to them. Such like hostile ground
to discriminate amongst the land owners has adversely been commented
upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Ram’s case (supra). Case of
the petitioners is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment in that case.
CWP No.15150 of 2010
In view of facts mentioned above, we allow this writ petition,
quash notification dated 26.9.2007 (P7), issued under Section 4 of the Act,
declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 25.9.2008 (P11) and an
award passed on 24.9.2010, qua the land of the petitioners in this writ
05.05.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg)
asked On 05 May 2013 at 00:33
In a judgement to a writ filed by the trespassers/Petitioner against myself and the Asst.Engineer-T.N.E.B-Respondents at the Madras High Court, for issue of electricity in their name(in my survey number) to which I had objected and also sent a legal notice to the Asst.Engineer-T.N.E.B not to grant any permission for electrical connection to the trespassers/petitioner in my land survey number which they have illegally occupied and also illegally constructed a small shed with the help of local police. The petitioner/Trespassers had illegally registered the sale deed using bogus 'patta' and other forged documents.
While the Judge had observed that the petitioner/trespasser has not established his legal rights over the property due to the registration of bogus documents, he has instructed the Asst.Engineer-T.N.E.B to use discretion in granting a 'temporary' electrical connection to the trespassers/petitioner in my land survey number under section 27(2) of provision of essential services which he has observed a 'Basic Civic Right' of an individual and that such right should not be denied.
This is highly ridiculous and mockery of interpretation of a law under Indian judicial system as it is very clear that the petitioner/trespasser does not hold any rights over the property or has any clear title to the property - when this is the case where is the question of denial of provision of essential services under section 27(2) under provision of essential services act??
It is most disheartening to note the deliberate or otherwise error on the part of the judge in coming to conclusions without proper verification of land document of both the sides.
I now fear, whether my right over the property will be ultimately denied to me due to the fact that the opposite side is using money and influence to their benefit and that they may claim 'possession' over my land.
I would like to know whether I will be seriously affected by such a ruling? or
Whether this ruling is to my advantage?
asked On 03 May 2013 at 22:32
This is urgent. My neighbor by name Uma Devi got 400 Sq yds of open land (out of total land of 800sq yds) situated in Hyderabad city, by way of registered will dt. 30.12.1995 which was executed by their late Mother Andalu during her lifetime. In the will it was clearly mentioned about this 400 sq yds with sketch map which is towards eastern side. Andalu died in the year 1996 and after her death, his son (brother of Uma devi) claimed the remaining 400 sq yds, by succession, which is towards western side portion, for which Uma Devi did not objected for her 50% share and she has given release deed to that extent.
Now the problem is by mistake Uma devi constructed a house long before ie. In the year 1997 in the western side plot which belongs to her brother and her brother also did not noticed it. Subsequently, her brother sold out the Eastern side plot (open plot) (assuming that it is his property) to some third party called Ramesh through Regd sale deed in the year 2002 and he in turn again sold to Bobby through registered sale deed in the year 2009. Nobody noticed this mistake.
Mr. Bobby came to this problem when he was started preparations to construct a building. As soon as bobby came to know about the problem, he started quarrelling with Uma devi to demolish her building and deliver the land to him as this land is having road facing two sides.
In view of the above facts what is the procedure to solve the problem. Whether we have to enter into rectification deed or can we enter into MOU with bobby. If so, whether this MOU can be registered with sub registrar. What is the procedure. Kindly clarify as this is very urgent.
asked On 03 May 2013 at 20:25
There’s a dispute over a property between my mother and my uncle.
The property is in my grandmother and grandfather’s name which they purchased in 1998. My grandfather passed away 2 years ago without a will. My grandparents have two children ie, my mother and my uncle.
My mother and me, we stay in Mumbai, my uncle stays in Kanpur, whereas the property is in Lucknow.
We intend to get grandmother to stay with us once, the property issue gets sorted out.
1. Uncle wants the house to be divided among him and my mother, but my mother doesn’t want that as we don’t live in Lucknow and we are not on good terms with my uncle, hence it would be difficult to stay with him.
2. Mom wants the property to be sold off and the money to be divided between Mom and uncle but uncle is not agreeing to it.
3. We have also been wishing to sell of mom’s and grandmother’s portion of the property (1/2 +1/3 of the property) but we are unable to find such a buyer who would buy this portion of the property .
4. Uncle might do 'kabza' of the property in case we remain silent over the issue.
We want to end this property matter and live in peace. My mother also doesn’t wish to forgo her right to the property.
Anandakrishnan V Iyer
asked On 03 May 2013 at 16:10
We are a Merchant Exporters and dealers from April 1st 2013 we are into excise We charge excise in all our sales within India. What are the rules for Export Sales. We are told no excise is to be levied if the goods are exported. We are not manufacturers but first stage dealers. Can your goodself guide us regarding this and also regarding the documents.............Thanking You Anandakrishnan v