R.K Nanda's Expert Profile

Queries Replied : 18841

+ View Full Profile

What kinds of questions I can and can't answer?

My area of expertise

My experience in the area (years):

Organizations I belong to:

Publications or writing which has appeared :

Educational credentials:

Award & Honors:

stani says : dv& maintainence
matter in court after mediation failed for domestic violence and maintainence. my husband put an application in court for access to the minor(daughter) and today was the court date for which i was unable to attend for some reasons. my lawyer has put an injuction order to submit my say for response to the application to access to the minor for the next court date and have requested court for next date. what is this injuncion order and will that affect me or the case in any way? what are the consequences of having missed the court date unintentionally without prior intimation and what would the court take action?

Prathapkumar orimpati says : my wife's grandfather property?
Hello sir, This is Kumar from AndhraPradesh. i got married in 2004.we are very happy.my father-in-law told told us while our marriage.. he have only one daughter and one son.. "the total property is given by my wife grand father".the total property will shear equally to both son and daughter. recently my brother-in-law got married. Now my father-in-law telling that there is no right to his daughter in the property.please help us. Thanking you sir, Yours faithfully Kumar

shivanand says : ptcl
Dear sir/madam The ptcl now remanded back to the DC dharwad with direction to pass appropriate order stating that the DC has relied on the judgment issue by the AC that there is no violation of ptcl act as the caste of the grantee is inserted as scheduled tribe w.e.f 19/04/1991 and the grantee alienated the land prior to 19/04/1991 i.e after completion of 15 years. In this connection the petitioner sating that the land has been granted to him during the year 1966 with non-alienation condition of 15 years. The petitioner has produced an order copy of land grant with stamen of persons to whom the land has been granted by the AC. On verification of land grant order now produced by the petitioner it is observed that there no mention of any land granted to him. he has also produced one mutation extract were in it is recorded as the land has been granted to him as AC and thashildar order dated 10/11/1965 and 30/11/1966 respectively In this connection we have given application to the AC and thashildar under the provision of Right to information act 2005 with request to furnish the certified copies of 1) extract of Land grant register or saguvali chitt. So as to ascertain the grant of land t the petitioner. But the ac and thashildar have given reply sateing that the above records are not traceable in their official records. The counsel of the petitioner has given the petition copy to DC court the same is brought to your kind perusal for issue of necessary advice in furnishing reply to the same. In the instant case the petitioner has finished a Xerox copy of caste certificate stating that he belongs to caste of Hindu valmiki which is not included in the of presidential notification scheduled tribe list order 1950 and this caste included in the year of 1991 constitution second amendment. W.e.f 19/04/1991. Note: the petitioner has enclosed the following documents while filing the case in AC office 1) A Xerox copy of land grant order (there is no mentioned of the name of the petitioner as land granted) 2) A Xerox copy of Hind valmiki caste certificate issued by thashildar. 3) Mutation extract copy where in it is recorded as land has been granted to him as per AC and thasildar order. 4) For his favourable rulings. In view of the above it is humbly requested your kind self for issue of necessary legal advice in defending the case. Shivanand desai 9986980722

shivanand says : brif note on PTCL case
Dear sir/madam, We have purchased 7 acre of land which was granted to one of shivappa kallappa naikmakkal in the year 1966 with a condition of non-alienation of the land for a period of 15 years. The grantee alienated the land during the year 1982 and 1985.which is after completion of 15 year.we is the 3rd purchaser of the land. The grantee filed a case with assistant commissioner dharwad (Karnataka),during the year 2005 stating that he belongs to HINDU VALMIKI caste which has been classified as scheduled tribe community there by lending to violation of clause 4(2) of the PTCL act with contention of resumption of land back to original grantee. The assistant commissioner dharwad heard the case and rejected the petition standing that the caste of the grantee has been classified as scheduled tribe community W.E.F 19/04/1991.the grantee filed and appeal to deputy commissioner dharwad during the year 2006-07 .the D.C dharwd has heard the case and upheld the judgment of AC dharwad. The grantee again preferred an writ petition to the High court of Karnataka during 2009 the court had heard the case and again remanded back to the case to the DC dharwad for hearing and for passing appropriate order. Now the case has been called for hearing by the DC on 25/02/2014. In regards to the judgment issued by the high court single and double bench the following points have been brought to perusal the constitution scheduled tribe order 1950 has been issued as per the provision of article 342 of constitution classifying the community under ST and several amendments have been issued to the presidential notification 1950 by adding caste of person inserted to the ST list w.e.f 19/04/1991 Naik,Nayak,Beda,Bedar &valmiki (constitution 2nd amendment 1991 copy and bill passed by Lok saba copy enclosed ) As states above caste every Amendments to presidential notification of 1950. Thre is a specific Effective date, month & year on which the caste for to be considered as ST. In such circumstances the judgments have been issued by the Honble judges considering the caste added to the ST with Retrospective effect with revert back to the presidential notification 1950. Without considering the effect dates,month,&year of amendments by issue of judgments considering as Retrospective effect of 1950, injustice has been caused to the purchaser of the land there by resumption of purchaser land back to original grantee. In view of the above the necessary classification requires on the following points 1) Whether the constitution scheduled tribe all amendments & modification amendments are Retrospective or prospective? 2) On what bases the judgments have issued considering the constitution amendments to revert back to presidential notification 1950? 3) If the all amendments are Retrospective effect for this any of the notification issued in this regards? Dear sir kindly as soon as possible necessary legal advice on the above the doubts may please I communicated. We are waiting for kind advice Thanking you sir Shivanand m desai 9986980722

veedu says : Breach of promise to marry
In India, what is the punishment for breach of promise to marry? What is the evidence we need to submit for promise of marriage?

Click here to see all answered queries

Comment Please

Other LCI Experts

Rajendra K Goyal
Queries Replied : 53581

Raj Kumar Makkad
Queries Replied : 44370

Devajyoti Barman
Queries Replied : 34799