Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Rajendra Kumar Patel vs The State Of M.P. And Anr on 8 August, 2013

Daulat Ram Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2024

29. Appellant/Daulatram (PW-1) in his statement denied the fact of taking possession of the disputed land from him on 04.02.2000 are on any date before 17.02.2000 when Repeal Act came into force in the State of MP. It is to be noted here that after alleged issuance of notice Ex. D-1/ Signature Not Verified Signed by: MONIKA CHOURASIA Signing time: 5/9/2024 11:57:15 AM 23 Ex. P-4 on 17.06.1994 near about six years, no step was taken by the respondents to take possession of the disputed land but one fine morning on 04.02.2000 what prompted the respondents to take possession of disputed land even without informing the appellant in this regard has not been explained which fortifies the case of the appellants that neither on 04.02.2000 nor on any other date actual possession of disputed lands was ever taken from them, but just to circumvent the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act, this antedated Kabza Panchnama showing date 04.02.2000 has been prepared by the respondents behind the back of the appellant/Daulatram. Thus, it is clearly proved that Kabza Panchnama (Ex. D/2) is only eyewash and has no value in the eye of law. Section 10(6) of the Principle Act has also not been proved to have been complied with. Non observance thereof is fatal and in case the possession of disputed lands have not been taken following due procedure, it cannot be recognized under the law. The Apex Court has considered this in case of D.R. Somayajulu (Supra), Velaxan Kumar (Supra), Sitaram Bhandar Society (Surpa) and Raghbir Singh Sehrawat (Supra) and observed that if de facto possession has not been taken following the procedure, it cannot be accepted that the possession has been taken by the respondents complying mandatory provisions of law.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Narendra Kumar Dubey (Dead) Through ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2026

He has also relied on the judgment reported in (2015) 2 SCC 390 Dr. Somayajulu Secretary, Diesel Loco Shed and Southern Eastern Railway House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Atili Appala Swamy and others; in Rajendra Kumar Patel Vs. State of M.P. passed in W.P./1855/2005, in Veer Narayan Rathore Vs. State of M.P. passed in W.P.No.10243/2007 in the case of Allied Motors Ltd. Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2012) 2 SCC 1 and, lastly he has relied on recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4526-4527 of 2024 M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation Vs. The Tahsildar and others and has submitted that in view of this the present petition deserves to be allowed on the ground that of non- compliance of required procedure under section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act by the respondent/authority and considering the fact that the petitioner is in actual physical possession.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anant Ram Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5842 6 W.P.No.12384 OF 2005 He has also relied on the judgment reported in (2015) 2 SCC 390 Dr. Somayajulu Secretary, Diesel Loco Shed and Southern Eastern Railway House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Atili Appala Swamy and others; in Rajendra Kumar Patel Vs. State of M.P. passed in W.P./1855/2005, in Veer Narayan Rathore Vs. State of M.P. passed in W.P.No.10243/2007 in the case of Allied Motors Ltd. Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2012) 2 SCC 1 and, lastly he has relied on recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4526-4527 of 2024 M/s A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation Vs. The Tahsildar and others and has submitted that in view of this the present petition deserves to be allowed on the ground that of non-compliance of required procedure under section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act by the respondent/authority and considering the fact that the petitioner is in actual physical possession.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Abhiman Patel vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2023

It is common ground that this Court while passing order dated 25th April, 2023 in the case of Urmila Patel (supra) observed that the matter appears to be civil nature and a criminal angle is given to it. Learned counsel for the applicants drew the attention of this Court on the order dated 02.09.2022 passed in W.P. No.19615/2022 (Rajendra Kumar Patel vs. State of M.P. & others). It is canvassed that the said writ petition was filed by complainant Rajendra Kumar Patel against the present applicant wherein a direction was prayed for registration of FIR against the private respondents, who have fraudulently sold certain lands and executed land deeds, which is also subject matter of offending Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 7/14/2023 5:06:28 PM 4 civil suit. It is common ground that said writ petition was disposed of by observing that once matter is already seized by the Civil Court and land in question is subject matter of civil suit. This Court did not etertain the writ petition and observed that it is better for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy by moving proper application before the same Court. Same Court means Civil Court. By suppressing this order of this Court, the complainant Rejendra Kumar Patel got the FIR registered. The dispute is of civil nature. The applicants will not temper the evidence or influenced the witnesses. The prosecution is mainly based on documentary evidence. Thus, on applying the principle of parity the applicants be given the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S Paul - Full Document

Rajendra Patel vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2023

It is common ground that this Court while passing order dated 25th April, 2023 in the case of Urmila Patel (supra) observed that the matter appears to be civil nature and a criminal angle is given to it. Learned counsel for the applicants drew the attention of this Court on the order dated 02.09.2022 passed in W.P. No.19615/2022 (Rajendra Kumar Patel vs. State of M.P. & others). It is canvassed that the said writ petition was filed by complainant Rajendra Kumar Patel against the present applicant wherein a direction was prayed for registration of FIR against the private respondents, who have fraudulently sold certain lands and executed land deeds, which is also subject matter of offending Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 7/14/2023 5:06:28 PM 4 civil suit. It is common ground that said writ petition was disposed of by observing that once matter is already seized by the Civil Court and land in question is subject matter of civil suit. This Court did not etertain the writ petition and observed that it is better for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy by moving proper application before the same Court. Same Court means Civil Court. By suppressing this order of this Court, the complainant Rejendra Kumar Patel got the FIR registered. The dispute is of civil nature. The applicants will not temper the evidence or influenced the witnesses. The prosecution is mainly based on documentary evidence. Thus, on applying the principle of parity the applicants be given the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S Paul - Full Document

Abhishek Kumar Patel vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2023

It is common ground that this Court while passing order dated 25th April, 2023 in the case of Urmila Patel (supra) observed that the matter appears to be civil nature and a criminal angle is given to it. Learned counsel for the applicants drew the attention of this Court on the order dated 02.09.2022 passed in W.P. No.19615/2022 (Rajendra Kumar Patel vs. State of M.P. & others). It is canvassed that the said writ petition was filed by complainant Rajendra Kumar Patel against the present applicant wherein a direction was prayed for registration of FIR against the private respondents, who have fraudulently sold certain lands and executed land deeds, which is also subject matter of offending Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 7/14/2023 5:06:28 PM 4 civil suit. It is common ground that said writ petition was disposed of by observing that once matter is already seized by the Civil Court and land in question is subject matter of civil suit. This Court did not etertain the writ petition and observed that it is better for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy by moving proper application before the same Court. Same Court means Civil Court. By suppressing this order of this Court, the complainant Rejendra Kumar Patel got the FIR registered. The dispute is of civil nature. The applicants will not temper the evidence or influenced the witnesses. The prosecution is mainly based on documentary evidence. Thus, on applying the principle of parity the applicants be given the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - S Paul - Full Document

Ashish Kumar Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2023

(Emphasis supplied) The prosecution has not produced anything before this Court to show that the applicants can flee from justice. Considering the nature of accusation coupled with the fact that the Co-ordinate Bench has already granted anticipatory bail to Urmila Patel (supra), I deem it proper to apply principle of parity and grant anticipatory bail to the present applicants without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S Paul - Full Document

Ajuddilal Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2025

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had filed a petition seeking quashment of order dated 16.07.2025 by which, the petitioner was sought to be transferred from B.R.C. Bakshwaha, District Chhatarpur to Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Daharra, District Chhatarpur. It is contended by the counsel that the impugned order was in respect of various other persons who are similarly situated who had also approached this Court by filing petitions vide W.P.No.29096/2025 (Rejendra Kumar Patel and Others vs. The State of M.P. and Others) decided on 30.07.2025, W.P.No.29435/2025 (Munnalal Dubey vs. The State of M.P. and Others) decided on 31.07.2025 and W.P.No.30315/2025 (Shyam Bihari Chourasiya vs. The State of M.P.) decided on 12.08.2025 and all of them were granted interim protection till the decision on representation. However, in the case of the present petitioner, the said interim protection was not granted.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M S Bhatti - Full Document

Sanjay Kumar Dohare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2025

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had filed a petition seeking quashment of order dated 16.07.2025 by which, the petitioner was sought to be transferred from B.R.C. Ishanagar, District Chhatarpur to Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Ghuwara, District Chhatarpur. It is contended by the counsel that the impugned order was in respect of various other persons who are similarly situated who had also approached this Court by filing petitions vide W.P.No.29096/2025 (Rejendra Kumar Patel and Others vs. The State of M.P. and Others) decided on 30.07.2025, W.P.No.29435/2025 (Munnalal Dubey vs. The State of M.P. and Others) decided on 31.07.2025 and W.P.No.30315/2025 (Shyam Bihari Chourasiya vs. The State of M.P.) decided on 12.08.2025 and all of them were granted interim protection till the decision on representation. However, in the case of the present petitioner, the said interim protection was not granted.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M S Bhatti - Full Document
1   2 Next