ADHUNIK GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD. ETC.versusSTATE OF RAJAS1HAN & ANR.
1989 INSC 7328 February 1989Appeal(s) allowed
After the integration of the princely State of Jodhpur, the former ruler’s private property, including the Umaid Bhavan Palace, was listed as Category C in the 1949 inventory. The Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land‑Owners’ Estate Act, 1963 issued a notification vesting all estates of land‑owners in the Stat…
GANGA VISHAN GUJRATI & ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
2019 INSC 93821 August 2019Dismissed
The appellants, appointed as Land Records Inspectors (LRIs) through a limited departmental examination for vacancies that arose in 2008‑09, 2009‑10 and 2010‑11, were placed in seniority lists dated 2012‑14 and later treated as appointed in 2014‑15. They claimed seniority should be computed from the year the vacancy aro…
BISHAMBHAR PRASADversusM/S. ARFAT PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. AND ORS
2023 INSC 40620 April 2023Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined the status of the Large-Scale Industrial Area (LIA) in Kota, Rajasthan, and held that the land has remained under the uninterrupted ownership and lessor relationship of the State Government, not transferred to RIICO by the 1979 order. It found that the leases granted to JKSL and later to Arfa…
DEEPversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
1995 INSC 90815 December 1995Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Deepa, was originally accepted as a tenant of a parcel of land that formed part of a former jagir. The respondent, Ram Chandra, sought her eviction under Section 177 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, but the suit was dismissed because the jagir had been abolished by the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resum…
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.versusSMT. AMARJEET KAUR AND ORS.
2002 INSC 53512 December 2002Dismissed
The respondents, landholders under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, were initially found not to hold surplus land. After the Rajasthan (Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 came into force, they were later declared to have surplus land and the State sought to reopen the earlier 1955 proceedings und…
BIR SINGH AND ORS.versusPYARE SINGH AND ORS.
2000 INSC 1216 March 2000Dismissed
The appellants, heirs of a zamindar who had mortgaged a parcel of khudkasht land, sued the mortgagee (later his heirs) for possession under Sections 43(3) and 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The district authority and revenue boards ruled in favour of the appellants, declaring them khatedar kashtkar, but the Rajastha…