Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (2.18 seconds)
Documents citing Dayaram Yadav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 6 May, 2016

Majid vs State Of U.P. on 4 April, 2023

In Mukesh Kumar(supra), offence involved was under Section 302 I.P.C. as well as cross version F.I.R. was under Section 307, where as Dayaram(supra), this Court has considered the evidence led before trial court, whereas in present consideration of bail has to be on basis of statements recorded during investigation and as referred above and that evidence against applicant was that he was author of the fatal blow.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S S Shamshery - Full Document

Nanhe Lal Kanaujia vs State Of U.P. Thru Addl Chief Secy ... on 5 July, 2023

In the order dated 19.12.2022 (supra), this Court has issued certain directions having regard to the specific mandate being issued by the Apex Court in certain cases e.g. Hinch Lal Tiwari (supra), Panna Lal (supra), Jag Pal Singh (supra) as well as the decisions of this Court in re: Om Prakash Verma (supra), Jagat Narayan (supra), Daya Ram Yadav (supra), Ram Laut (supra), Ram Bihari Dwivedi (supra), Sri Raju (supra) and Ghanshyam Verma (supra) and the Competent Revenue Authority has issued certain guidelines and the directions for all the Competent Revenue Officers/ Officials of the State of U.P., as considered here-in-above. Therefore, it is directed that all the Competent Revenue Officers/ Officials of the State of U.P. shall abide by the mandate and the directions being issued by the Apex Court, by this Court as well as by the Department of Revenue, U.P. in its letter and spirit, failing which, the strict and stringent action may be taken against those erring Officers/ Officials.
Allahabad High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 2 - R S Chauhan - Full Document

Manoj Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 12 Others on 6 October, 2025

In the catena of judgments including judgments in State of Haryana and others Vs. Satpal and others, 2023 INSC 201, and in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 20672 of 2016 (Dayaraj Yadav and others Vs. State of UP and others decided on 6.5.2016), the Apex Court and the High Court have upheld the strict enforcement against authorized encroachment on the public land/public utility land belonging to the village Panchayat.
Allahabad High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Munni Lal @ Hari Sharan vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 9 Others on 6 October, 2025

In the catena of judgments including judgments in State of Haryana and others Vs. Satpal and others, 2023 INSC 201, and in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 20672 of 2016 (Dayaraj Yadav and others Vs. State of UP and others decided on 6.5.2016), the Apex Court and the High Court have upheld the strict enforcement against authorized encroachment on the public land/public utility land belonging to the village Panchayat.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Munni Lal @ Hari Sharan vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 9 Others on 6 October, 2025

In the catena of judgments including judgments in State of Haryana and others Vs. Satpal and others, 2023 INSC 201, and in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 20672 of 2016 (Dayaraj Yadav and others Vs. State of UP and others decided on 6.5.2016), the Apex Court and the High Court have upheld the strict enforcement against unauthorized encroachment on the public land/public utility land belonging to the village Panchayat.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manoj Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 12 Others on 6 October, 2025

In the catena of judgments including judgments in State of Haryana and others Vs. Satpal and others, 2023 INSC 201, and in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 20672 of 2016 (Dayaraj Yadav and others Vs. State of UP and others decided on 6.5.2016), the Apex Court and the High Court have upheld the strict enforcement against unauthorized encroachment on the public land/public utility land belonging to the village Panchayat.
Allahabad High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1