vikram singh
24 December 2011 at 22:15
Dear Sir
sir there is agriculture land with a family 81 acres girdawari in the name of grand mother (Tija DEvi) and after death all transfer in the name of three sons (1st BHAL SINGH, 2nd POL SHAB, AND 3rd JAGDISH) except 3 acres (i.e. 21 in the name of Bhal singh, 30 in the name of Pol Shab, 27 In the name of Jagdish and remaining 3 till in the name of grand mother Tija devi.
Now possession on land like this from last 20 years and all naheri girdawari in the name of respective possession (due to family and relative panchayat) 24 acres BHAL SINGH INCLUDING 3 ACRES GIRDAWARI IN THE NAME OF TIJA DEVI, 30 ACRES PHOL SHAB AND 27 ACRES JAGDISH.
NOW DISPUTE START IN 2009
BETWEEN RAMNIWASH SON OF BHAL SING
AND
ATMARAM SON OF POL SHAB
ATMA RAM DESTROY THE CROP OF 6.5 ACRES WHICH POSSESSED BY RAM NIWASH AND A REPORT IS PREPARED BY SHO THAT LAND IS POSSESSED BY MOTHER OF ATMA RAM AND THERE IS DISPUTE ON LAND BY GIVE BRIBES ( A FALSE REPORT) NOW SDM PASSED ORDER UNDER SEC 145/146 CRPC THEN WE MOVE ON HIGH COURT. HIGH COURT PASSED STAYED ORDER IN FIRS HEARING IN RESPECT TO 3.5 ACRES THAT POSSESSION IS GIVEN TO THE PERSON FROM WHOM IT WAS TAKEN. NOW SDM REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE STAYED ORDER THEN WE AGAIN MOVE TO HIGH COURT THEN HIGH COURT PASSED ORDER IN RESPECT OF 6.5 ACRES THAT POSSESSION HANDOVER TO THE PERSON WHOM IT WAS TAKEN. NOW WE APPEAL TO SDM AND SHOW ALL REVENUE RECORDS OF POSSESSION LIKE NAHERI GIRDAWARI , MALL RECEIPT, AND EFFIDAVITE GIVEN BY OUR TENANT. BUT SDM NOT CONSIDER REVENUE RECORD AND PASSED AN ORDER ON THE BASES OF EARLIER REPORT OF SHO FOR 3 ACRES THAT POSSESSION IS GIVEN TO ATMARAM'S MOTHER AND REGARDING 3.5 ACRES NO ORDER PASSED ON STAYED GIVEN BY HIGH COURT IS RECORDED.
NOW WE FILE CONTEMPT TO HIGH COURT AGAINST SDM ( NEXT DATE OF HEARING 18 MARCH) AND REVISION CASE IN SESSION COURT (NEXT DATE OF HEARING IS 20 FEB 2012)
NOW AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACT PLEASE CONSULT ME ABOUT THE FOLLOWING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE ITS URGENT BECAUSE WE LOST 6.5 ACRES OWEN LAND BECAUSE OF CORRUPT PERSONS
1. CAN WE POSSESS 3.5 ACRES FOR WHICH NO ORDER IS PASSED BY SDM ONLY STAYED ORDER IS RECORDED EARLIER PASSED BY HIGH COURT STATED THAT POSSESSION IS GIVEN TO THE PERSON FROM WHOM IT WAS TAKEN
2. CAN DC HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THE SDM DECISION IN THE ABOVE SITUATION EVEN FOR 3.5 ACRES OR FOR ALL 6.5 ACRES
ALL PEOPLE AND PATWATI AND NUMBERDAR KNOWS THAT LAND IS OUR BUT ANOTHER PARTY POSSESS FORCEFULLY
PLEASE HELP
IF YOU WANT TO ANY MORE INFORMATION. I WILL PROVIDE.
VIKRAM SINgh 9999916827
Anonymous
24 December 2011 at 18:59
Dear Sir,
My writ petition for not extending my adhoc tenure beyond 30.06.2010 by the respondent organisation has been dismissed by High Court .On the day of dismissal, the senior counsel of the respondent appaers and submitted piece of paper which has disclosed that in the said department no contract employee tenure has been extended beyond 01.01.2009 which has come in the order pronounced by Divisonal Bench of High Court
The actual fact was that there was 2 employee working on adhoc basis ( me and other lady). The other adhoc employee tenure has not been extended beyond 01.01.2009 as she was on prolonged leave and applied for extension of leave which was rejected as result her tenure was not extended.After her removal I was the only one employee working on adhoc basis and my services has been extended till 30.06.2010 and was rlieved on Memo dated 27/11/2010
whether filing review application as the bench relied on wrong submission will going to help
Anonymous
24 December 2011 at 18:02
Sir,
I have a Query. I want to know whether a writ petition is filed again when a writ petition is withdrawn having been filed taking wrong grounds.
The original petition having been withdrawn about 3 years back and a fresh writ petition is desired to be filed by taking the correct desired grounds.
Kindly throw light on this issue.
praveen
24 December 2011 at 15:14
My client is intending to purchase a immovable property including plant and machinery under auction by BANK under SARFAESI Act, this property is mortgaged to bank by the company. directors of this company are also directors of another company which has defaulted in customs and excise dues Now suppose he buys in the auction, will excise dues and customs dues payable by the directors of the second mentioned company which is also under SARFESI Act will be claimed from the new auction buyer. WILL SOMEOTHER LIABILITY CREEP IN ALONG WITH THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY UNDER SARFAESI ACT. IF ANY, WHAT KIND AND TYPE OF LIABILITY ARE LIKELY TO ARISE.
Anonymous
24 December 2011 at 13:26
Suit Filed in Gujarat-Halol
There is no stay on property
Suit is Partition Suit
Petitioner is no where in revenue record
when a parition suit is pending in a civil court and a petitioner is not a co-owner of disputed non-agricutureal land, inspite of he has filed a partition suit as co-owner of the property.
petitioner is brother of opponent but not co-owner of disputed property and the other legal heir that sister of opponent has not been joined by the petitioner
So civil should reject the suit or not?
Anonymous
23 December 2011 at 22:31
In Guardianship case which is finilised in district second time.before that first district order was challenged by opposite party and remanded back to district court .Now matter is finislised again district court .
First time opposition appealed it as Appeal from order now if either of party want to challenge it, it will be first appeal or Appeal from order? What is difference between First Appeal and appeal from order?
Anonymous
23 December 2011 at 22:29
In Guardianship case which is finilised in district second time.before that first district order was challenged by opposite party and remanded back to district court .Now matter is finislised again district court .
First time opposition appealed it as Appeal from order now if either of party want to challenge it, it will be first appeal or Appeal from order? What is difference between First Appeal and appeal from order?
Vinesh K Chhaya
23 December 2011 at 21:52
My client has borrow Housing loan of Rs. 3.25 Lacks from multi state scheduled bank at the rate of interest 14% reducing in year 2000 His account converted into NPA in 2007 now bank demands Rs. 14 lakhs so the dispute arose and he went to DRT against the SARFAESI section 13(4) and get interim status quo.... he deposited pricipal loan amount Rs. 4 lakhs according to order fo DRT...Bank still demands Rs. 10 lakh with interest....Then DRT said it as no power to decide interest under section 34(CPC) so which jurisdiction My client has to apply to count proper Interest?
Anonymous
23 December 2011 at 19:07
IF A PERSON ENCROACHES INTO A AREA OF THE TERRACE OF A GROUP HOUSING COMPLEX TO WHICH HE DOES NOT POSSESS ANY TITLE DEED, DOES THAT TERRACE COMES UNDER THE LAND GRABBING ACT.
IF NOT UNDER WHAT ACT DOES IT COME.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Sec 9 cpc
under sec 9 cpc second suit during pendency of suit can be entertained or tried?
remember it is sec 9 not sec 10.
pls apply mind