Fawazzx/semantic huggingface dataset:
As noted herein earlier,since section 121A of the Act clearly empowers the High Court to look into the legality of the orders impugned,therefore,it would be open to the High Court to consider the material evidence on record,when it finds that such evidence was not at all considered by the tribunals below or when the conclusion arrived at by the tribunals below run contrary to the materials on record or when it finds that there is no evidence to support the conclusion of the tribunals below or that the reasons given by the tribunals below are absolutely perverse or a finding was such that no court would come to such a conclusion or that the decisions of the tribunals below were manifestly unjust
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
In our view also,the High Court was fully justified in drawing an adverse inference against the appellants for not producing any Geni receipts or any lease agreement to show that the 5th respondent before the High Court (respondent No.3 herein) had,in fact,leased out the scheduled land in favour of the appellants or their father,since deceased,on crop share basis and that the appellants had paid the Geni to the 5th respondent
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal & Anr.[(1997) 10 SCC 305],1995 Indlaw SC 1227 this Court,while declining to interfere with the order of the High Court in the exercise of its power u/art.136 of the Constitution,held that even if two views are possible,the view taken by the High Court being a plausible one,it would not call for intervention by this Court u/art.136 of the Constitution
Semantic role: Precedent
The main question raised in this appeal by special leave at the instance of State,of Gujarat,and the Collector of Sabarkantha against the Gujarat High Court's judgment and order dated January 30/31,1975 allowing the writ petition of the respondent is whether once the competent authority under s.2(4) (i) of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
The facts giving rise to the said question are these : By Hajur Order No.116 dated October 27,1933,the respondent (Maharaj Shri Amar Singji Himatsingji) was granted Daljitgarh Jagir comprising of 10 villages mentioned in the said order in jivarak (for maintenance) by the then Ruler of Idar; by another Hajur Order No.807 dated January 12,1934,the respondent was given a further grant in jivarak of 3 villages mentioned in that order with effect from October 1,1933; by yet another Hajur Order No.964 dated November 21,1947,14 villages (including Kapoda and Isarwada) were granted in jivarak to the respondent by the Ruler of Idar in substitution of the villages mentioned in the previous two orders
Semantic role: Facts
Admittedly,on the coming into force of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act,1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") i.e.with effect from respondent's Daljitgarh Jagir stood abolished and all his rights in the Jagir villages,save as expressly provided by or under the Act,were extinguished and the respondent became entitled to compensation under s.11 of the Act
Semantic role: Facts
It appears that for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the Act the competent authority (Collector of District Sabarkantha) held an inquiry into the question whether the respondent's Jigir was proprietary (involving any right or interest in the soil) or non-proprietary (involving mere assignment of land revenue or rent due to Government) under s.2 (4) (i) of the Act and having regard to the documentary and other evidence led before it,the competent authority by its order dated September 8,1959,held that the Daljitgarh Jagir of the respondent was a proprietary jagir
Semantic role: Facts
It further appears that pursuant to an order dated November 24,1959,passed by the Mamlatdar,Idar,an entry was made on June 18,1963,in the relevant revenue records (village Form No.6) of one of the villages Kapoda comprised in the Jagir to the effect that the respondent's right to take out gravel and stones was recognised but the right relating to excavation of mica had been reserved and retained by the Government; this entry was only certified on March 30,1965.According to the respondent since the entries made in the revenue records in respect of his rights to mines and mineral products were not sufficient and proper and though the Mamlatdar's order dated November 24,1959 was in respect of two villages,namely,Kapoda and Isarwada,the relevant entry in respect of greval and stones had been made only in regard to village Kapoda,he by his application dated October 11,1968,requested the Collector,Sabarkantha,to issue necessary orders to the Mamlatdar,Idar,to make appropriate entries regarding his rights in the minerals in village Isarwada
Semantic role: Facts
A similar application,containing similar request,was also made by the respondent to the Mamlatdar Taluka Idar on October 4,1971.Thereupon a notice under S.37(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code for the purpose of holding an inquiry into the rights of the respondent to mines and mineral products of the said villages claimed by the respondent wag served upon him but the respondent raised a preliminary objection that such inquiry wag misconceived and incompetent in view of the determination made under s.2 (4) (i) of the Act and having regard to the provisions of S.10 of the Act-his rights,to mines and mineral products were expressly saved; the Collector of Sabarkantha (appellant No.2) overruled the preliminary objection and by order dated February 23,1973,directed that the inquiry shall proceed and the respondent was directed to produce his evidence in support of his claim on a date that would be fixed and intimated to him
Semantic role: Facts
Aggrieved by this order passed by the Collector on February 23,1973,the respondent preferred a writ petition (Special Civil Application No.1224 of 1973) under Art.227 of the Constitution to the,Gujarat High Court and writ of certiorari quashing the order dated February 23,1973 and a direction restraining the Collector from further proceeding with the inquiry under S.37(2) of the Land Revenue Code were sought
Semantic role: Facts
These reliefs sought by the respondent were resisted by the State of Gujarat and the Collector (the appellants before us) principally on the ground that the inquiry under s.37(2) of the Land Revenue Code into the rights to mines and mineral products in the said villages claimed by the respondent was necessary and proper and could not be said to-be concluded by the determination made under s.2 (4) (1) of the Act by the competent authority
Semantic role: Facts
The High Court negatived the contentions urged by the appellants and took the view that in the determination by the competent authority under s.2 (4) (i) of the Act that the respondent's Jagir was a proprietary one there was implicit decision that the respondent was a grantee of the soil which included sub-soil entitling him to mines and mineral products and as such a further inquiry by the Collector under S.37(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was incompetent and without jurisdiction and,therefore,the Collector's order dated February 23,1973 was liable to be quashed
Semantic role: Ruling by Lower Court
Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the High Court has adopted an erroneous view of the scope and ambit of the inquiry contemplated under S.2(4)(i) of the Act by the competent authority in as much as under the said provision the competent authority had power merely to decide the question whether the respondents Jagir was a proprietary or a non-proprietary Jagir and had no Dower or jurisdiction to determine whether on the appointed date that is on August 1,1954 when the Act,came into force the respondent had subsisting rights to mines and minerals products in the Jagir villages so as to be saved under S.10 of the Act
Semantic role: Argument
i) to be proprietary was not tantamount to the establishment by the respondent of his rights to mines and mineral products in the villages of his Jagir for which there must be an actual grant or contract or law or custom or usage recognising such rights and this could only be determined by the Collector by holding an inquiry under s.37(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code,and,therefore the High Court was clearly in error in coming to the conclusion that the inquiry initiated by the second appellant under s.37(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code,was incompetent or without jurisdiction
Semantic role: Argument
On the other hand,learned counsel for the respondent contended that a determination under s.2 (4) (i) of the Act that a particular Jagir 'was a proprietary one necessarily implied that the grant was of soil and the grantee was entitled to mines and mineral products which were expressly saved under s.10 of the Act and in any event on the facts obtaining in the instant case the competent authority acting under s.2 (4) (i) of the Act,while coming to the conclusion that the respondent's Jagir was proprietary one,bad relied upon the unqualified nature of the grant and also considered the evidence led before it touching upon the several rights such as right to sell fire-wood,babul trees,saltrees,timru trees,right to sell agriculture land and house sites; right to sell stones and gravel,right to sell or allow use of land for manufacture of bricks-enjoyed by the respondent since the time the grant had been made in his favour by the then Ruler and it was on the basis of such evidence that tile competent authority had come to the conclusion that the respondent's Jagir was a proprietary one
Semantic role: Argument
He pointed out that presumably pursuant to this determination,the Mamlatdar,Idar,had passed an order on November 24,1959,that the respondent's right to stones and gravel in the two villages of Kapoda and Isarwada,though not to mica,had been recognised by the Government and accordingly the necessary entry pertaining to respondent's right to stones and gravel had been made in the relevant revenue records at least in the case of village Kapoda and had been duly certified
Semantic role: Argument
He further urged that the two letters addressed by the respondent-one to the Collector on October 11,1968 and the other to the Mamlatdar on October 4,1971,merely contained a request to make appropriate entries in the Revenue Records based on the Mamlatdar's order dated November 24,1959 and,therefore,the Collector could not pronounce upon those letters as containing a claim put forward by the respondent for the first time to mines and mineral products in the said Jagir villages to initiate an inquiry under s.37(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue de
Semantic role: Argument
S.2(vii) defines "jagirdar" as meaning a holder of a jagir village and includes his co-sharer.S.2(xv) defines "nonproprietary Jagir" as meaning a jagir which consists of a right in the jagirdar to appropriate as incident of the jagir,land revenue or rent due to Government from persons holding land in a jagir village,but which does not consist of any right or interest in the soil
Semantic role: Statute
Section 3,which contains the main provision dealing with abolition of jagirs,provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any usage,grant,sanad,order,agreement or any law for the time being in force,on and from the appointed date (which under S.2 (1) (i) is a date on which the Act comes into force,which is August 1,1954),all jagirs shall be deemed to have been abolished and save as expressly provided by or under the provisions of this Act,the right of a jagirdar to recover rent or assessment of land or to levy or recover any kind of tax,cess,fee,charge or any hak and the right of reversion or lapse if any,vested in a jagirdar,and all other rights of a jagirdar or of any person legally subsisting on the said date-,in respect of a jagir village as incidents of jagir shall be deemed to have been extinguished
Semantic role: Statute
S.8 declares that all public roads,lands,paths,bridges,titches,dikes,and fences,on or besides the same,the bed of the sea and of harbours,creeks below high water mark,and of rivers,streams,nalaps lakes,wells and tanks,and all canals and water courses etc,situated in jagir village shall vest in the State Government and shall be deemed to be the property of the State Government and all rights held by such jagirdars in such property shall be deemed to have been extinguished.s.10 contains an express saving provision relating to rights to mines and mineral products and it provides that "nothing in this Act or any other law for the time being in force,shall be deemed to affect the rights of any jagirdar subsisting on the appointed date to mines or mineral products in a jagir village granted or recognised under any contract.,grant or law for the time being in force or by custom or usage
Semantic role: Statute
Ss.13 and 14 provide for methods of awarding compensations to jagirdars by the Collector and against the awards of the Collector under either of these provisions a appeal has been provided at the instance of the aggrieved party to the Revenue Tribunal under s.16.S.17 provides the procedure for disposal of appeals by the Revenue Tribunal while s.18 prescribes a period of limitation for preferring such appeals and s.20 gives finality to the award made by the Collector subject to appeal to the Revenue Tribunal
Semantic role: Statute
Secondly,compensation is made payable under S.11 of the Act to Jagirdars whose Jagirs and other incidental rights have been extinguished but it will be pertinent to note that no provision has been made for payment of compensation in respect of rights to mines and mineral products in a Jagir village,obviously because if by the grant in question the Jagirdar has not been given any rights to mines and mineral products no compensation would be payable and if there be a grant of mines and mineral products the same have been saved "to the Jagirdar under S.10 of the Act
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
Thirdly,the quantum of compensation payable for abolition of Jagir and extinguishment of his other rights depends upon what kind of Jagir has been abolished,whether it is proprietary or non-proprietary; in other words it is clear that the inquiry into the nature of the Jagir under s.2 (4) (i) is for the purpose of determining the quantum of compensation payable to a Jagirdar inasmuch as in the case of.a non-proprietary Jagir the Jagirdar is entitled to compensation at the rate of three times the amount of land revenue received by or due to him as an incident of Jagir during the five years immediately before the appointed date under S.11 (1),while in the case of a proprietary Jagir in respect of land held by a permanent holder the Jagirdar is entitled to compensation equivalent to three multiples of the assessment fixed for such land; S.11(3) provides for compensation and computation thereof to a Jagirdar having any right or interest in any property referred to in S.8.In such an inquiry ordinarily no determination of any rights of the Jagirdar to mines or mineral products in a Jagir village will be undertaken for' no compensation is payable in respect of any rights to mines and mineral products in a Jagir village
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
These aspects bring out true scope and ambit of the inquiry under sec.2(4)(i) and clearly show that the determination of the question whether a Jagir is proprietary or nonproprietary does not necessarily involve the determination of the question whether the Jagirdar had any rights to mines and mineral products on the appointed date.it is true that prima facie the owner of the surface of the land would be entitled to everything beneath the land and ordinarily mines and mineral products would pass with the right to the surface but this would be so in the absence of any reservations made in the grant; if there be reservations or qualifications in regard to mines or mineral products,in the grant,then these would not pass
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
It is,therefore,not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that a determination under s.2 (4) (i) of the Act to the effect that a particular Jagir is a proprietary one necessarily implies that the grantee is entitled to mines and mineral products in the villages comprised in the grant,especially ,when having regard to the definition given in s.2(xviii) a Jagir could be proprietary without a right to mines and mineral products
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
i) of the Act,a further inquiry under s.37(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code into the question whether a Jagirdar had any subsisting rights to mines and mineral products in the Jagir villages on the appointed date would be competent unless the grant of a right to mines and mineral products ,or the actual enjoyment thereof in keeping with the grant happens to ,be the basis of the,determination under s.2 (4) (1 ) of the Act
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
S.37(1) of the Code contains the well-known declaratory provision where under all public roads,lanes and paths,the bridges,ditches,dikes,beds of the sea,harbours and creeks below high-water-mark,and of rivers,streams,nallas,lakes and tanks etc.and all lands wherever situated,which are not the property of individuals,are declared to be,with all rights in or over the same,or appertaining thereto,the property of the Crown; then follows sub-s.(2) which is material and it runs thus: "37(2
Semantic role: Statute
The question in the instant case is whether the respondent by making the two applications,one dated October 11,1968 to the Collector of Sabarkantha and the other dated October 4,1971,to the Mamlatdar,Taluka Idar,could be said to have put forward or laid a claim to a right to excavate gravel and stone a particular mineral product-so as to afford an occasion for the Collector to initiate the inquiry
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
Admittedly,by his previous order dated November 24,1959,the Mamlatdar of Talukadar,had declared that the respondent had been granted all the rights,particularly the right to quarry and remove gravel and Stones,in Isarwada and Kapoda villages in the year 1947 by the Idar Stale and that thereafter in the years 1952 and 1953 the Jagirdar had taken the produce of stone and that,therefore,the Government could not stop him from "taking out gravel and stones" but that the rights to excavating mica had been retained by the State; further,pursuant to this 'order the appropriate entry had been made in the relevant village records (Form No.6) of village Kapoda on June 18,1963,recognising the respondents right to,take out gravel and stones,which entry was verified and confirmed on March 30,1965,it was in this situation that the respondent made the aforesaid two applications,one to the Collector,Sabarkantha and the other to the Mamladar Taluka Idar,whereby relying upon the previous order of the Mamlatdar dated November 24,1959,he requested that appropriate entries pertaining to his right to gravel and stones should be similarly made in respect of village Isarwada
Semantic role: Facts
We may state that Counsel for-the respondent categorically stated before the Court that his client was confining his right to excavating only one type of mineral product,namely,gravel and stones,and that too from only two villages,namely,Kapoda and Isarwada comprised in his Jagir,in regard to which the Mamlatdar's order dated November 24,1959,was quite clear and,therefore,he urged that the further inquiry under s.37(2) of the Code into that very right was misconceived and uncalled for
Semantic role: Argument
If and when he prefers a claim to this particular mineral productfrom other villages comprised in his grant or to the other mines ormineral products in all the villages including Isarwada and Kapodaan inquiry into such claim under s.37(2) could be held,but even the decision at such inquiry would be subject to adjudication by a Civil Court in appropriate proceedings,for the final pronouncement on such rights must,as is clear from the scheme ,of the Bombay Land Revenue Code,always rest with the Civil Court
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
It is this Court which, by its order dated 10-4-1969 in Civil Revisions 201, 202 and 203 of 1968 conferred new jurisdiction on the Compensation Officer to deal freshly with the case and therefore notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the compensation has to be calculated according to the directions given by the Court; (2) The Court was fully aware of the statutory provision in s. 26(2
Semantic role: Ruling by Lower Court
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 03.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature,Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.436 of 2001 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and confirmed the judgment dated 19.03.2001 passed by the Special Judge,C.B.I.Cases,Visakhapatnam in C.C.No.2 of 1998
Semantic role: Facts
Brief facts: "(a) The appellant-accused was working as a Head Clerk in the Traffic Cadre Section in the Office of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,South Central Railway,Vijayawada during the period from April,1992 to November,1997.The nature of duties of the appellant-accused included dealing with and processing of the matters like promotions,transfers,seniority list,roster list,pay fixation on promotions,retirements,resignations etc.of the personnel
Semantic role: Facts
On 15.11.1997,at 7.30 a.m.,an FIR was registered by the Inspector,CBI,Visakhapatnam Branch in Crime No.RC 20(A)/97-VSP.After recording the statements of the witnesses,Inspector of Police,CBI,Visakhapatnam filed charge sheet being No.2/98-YTR dated 29.04.1998 against the appellant-accused for an offence punishable under Sections 7,13(1)(d)(ii) read with S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases at Visakhapatnam
Semantic role: Facts
The Special Judge,CBI,by order dated 19.03.2001,convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-and,in default,to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable u/s.7 of the Act and one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-and,in default,to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable u/ss.13(1)(d) (ii
Semantic role: Facts
At the SLP stage,this Court,by order dated 27.07.2009,issued notice confined only to the question as to whether the petitioner was guilty of commission of an offence under any of the parts of S.304 Indian Penal Code,1860 (in short 'IPC') and not u/s.302 IPC.Similar request was made before the Bench that the appellant was entitled to urge all the questions including his right to urge that he should have been acquitted in the facts and circumstances of the case
Semantic role: Argument
Inasmuch as both the courts have thoroughly discussed the oral and documentary evidence with reference to the charges leveled against the appellant and in view of the limited order dated 28.01.2008 by this Court issuing notice confining to quantum of sentence only and even applying the analogy enunciated in Yomeshbhai 2011 Indlaw SC 370 (supra),we feel that it is not a case of such nature that the appellant should be heard on all points,consequently,we reject the request of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
Rangaramanujam,learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that inasmuch as the alleged incident took place on 14.11.1997 and 14 years have elapsed since then,the amount of Rs.200/-said to have been received by the appellant is trivial in nature and also of the fact that due to the said conviction and sentence he lost his job,leniency may be shown and sentence be reduced to the period already undergone
Semantic role: Argument