Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Rishiraj Singh And Ors. vs Raghubar Singh And Ors. on 29 January, 1968

Suresh Kumar vs Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal on 20 March, 1974

18. The learned Deputy Advocate-General relied on the decision of this Court in Rishiraj Singh v. Raghubar Singh 1968 MPLJ 461 = (AIR 1968 Madh Pra 228); but that was a case under the Land Acquisition Act and it was held therein that a decision by the Additional District Judge on a reference made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act was a decree. That decision cannot, however, be considered to be an authority for this case, as the provisions of the said Act are not in pari materia with those of the Act in question.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Custodian, Evacuee Property vs Amarnath And Ors. on 28 May, 1981

We, on the other hand prefer the view taken in Braja Kewat v. Madanlal Agarwalla, AIR 1951 Pat 608; Rishiraj Singh v. Raghubar Singh, AIR 1968 Madh Pra 228 and in re Ananda Lal Chakrubutty, AIR 1932 Cal 346, though we cannot go to the extent of agreeing with the view expressed by the learned Judge in AIR 1951 Pat 608 (supra) that application of Article 17(iii) shall be excluded because a reference under Section 18, or Section 31, is not a suit to attract the provisions of this article. The terra 'suit' as we have already held, shall have to be given a wider connotation so as to include even proceedings commended on a reference made tinder Section 18 or Section 31.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - A S Anand - Full Document

Sh. Mohd Umar Nizami vs Collector Land Acquisition on 12 March, 2026

10..... A similar view has been taken in A. Mahalinga Kudumban and others v. Thectharrppa Mudalier, AIR 1929 Madras 223, Chikkanna Chettia Vs. V.S Perumal Chettiar and another, AIR 1940 Madras 474 (FB), Loomchand Sait vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer Trichy and others, AIR 1975 Madras 177 and Rishiraj Singh and others v. Raghubar Singh and others, AIR 1968 Madhya Pradesh 1228. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that a finding recorded by a Land Acquisition Court on the question of apportionment of compensation settled by the Collector, or on the question of title of the parties to receive it, is a decree against which on appeal would lie by force of Section 95 Civil Pr. Code."
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document
1