Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 49 (0.90 seconds)
Documents citing Sher Singh (Dead) By Lrs vs Joint Director Of Consolidation & Ors on 5 May, 1978

Bhikhari vs D.D.C. & Others on 10 January, 2018

"15. According to the legal principle laid down by this Court in the case mentioned above, the power of the Revisional Authority under Section 48 of the Act only extends to ascertaining whether the subordinate courts have exceeded their jurisdiction in coming to the conclusion. Therefore, if the Original and Appellate Authorities are within their jurisdiction, the Revisional Authority cannot exceed its jurisdiction to come to a contrary conclusion by admitting new facts either in the form of documents or otherwise, to come to the conclusion. Therefore, we answer point no. 1 in favour of the appellants by holding that the Revisional Authority exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act by admitting documents at revision stage and altering the decision of the subordinate courts."
Allahabad High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Kailash vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, ... on 7 April, 2025

"15. According to the legal principle laid down by this Court in the case mentioned above, the power of the Revisional Authority under Section 48 of the Act only extends to ascertaining whether the subordinate courts have exceeded their jurisdiction in coming to the conclusion. Therefore, if the Original and Appellate Authorities are within their jurisdiction, the Revisional Authority cannot exceed its jurisdiction to come to a contrary conclusion by admitting new facts either in the form of documents or otherwise, to come to the conclusion. Therefore, we answer point no. 1 in favour of the appellants by holding that the Revisional Authority exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act by admitting documents at revision stage and altering the decision of the subordinate courts."
Allahabad High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - S Lavania - Full Document

Umesh Chandra Asthana And 3 Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation-Ii, ... on 16 April, 2025

"15. According to the legal principle laid down by this Court in the case mentioned above, the power of the Revisional Authority under Section 48 of the Act only extends to ascertaining whether the subordinate courts have exceeded their jurisdiction in coming to the conclusion. Therefore, if the Original and Appellate Authorities are within their jurisdiction, the Revisional Authority cannot exceed its jurisdiction to come to a contrary conclusion by admitting new facts either in the form of documents or otherwise, to come to the conclusion. Therefore, we answer point no. 1 in favour of the appellants by holding that the Revisional Authority exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act by admitting documents at revision stage and altering the decision of the subordinate courts."
Allahabad High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - S Lavania - Full Document

Anil Kumar Dubey vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, ... on 14 May, 2025

"15. According to the legal principle laid down by this Court in the case mentioned above, the power of the Revisional Authority under Section 48 of the Act only extends to ascertaining whether the subordinate courts have exceeded their jurisdiction in coming to the conclusion. Therefore, if the Original and Appellate Authorities are within their jurisdiction, the Revisional Authority cannot exceed its jurisdiction to come to a contrary conclusion by admitting new facts either in the form of documents or otherwise, to come to the conclusion. Therefore, we answer point no. 1 in favour of the appellants by holding that the Revisional Authority exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act by admitting documents at revision stage and altering the decision of the subordinate courts."
Allahabad High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - S Lavania - Full Document

Janardan @ Janardan Prashad Tiwari And 6 ... vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, ... on 27 May, 2025

"15. According to the legal principle laid down by this Court in the case mentioned above, the power of the Revisional Authority under Section 48 of the Act only extends to ascertaining whether the subordinate courts have exceeded their jurisdiction in coming to the conclusion. Therefore, if the Original and Appellate Authorities are within their jurisdiction, the Revisional Authority cannot exceed its jurisdiction to come to a contrary conclusion by admitting new facts either in the form of documents or otherwise, to come to the conclusion. Therefore, we answer point no. 1 in favour of the appellants by holding that the Revisional Authority exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act by admitting documents at revision stage and altering the decision of the subordinate courts."
Allahabad High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - S Lavania - Full Document

Noor Mohammad & 2 Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, ... on 19 May, 2020

In Sher Singh vs. Joint Director of Consolidation; (1978) 3 SCC 172, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering Section 48 before its amendment and held that the language of the Section being pari materia with Section 115 C.P.C. confines revisional jurisdiction of the Court to cases of illegal or irregular exercise or non-exercise or illegal assumption of the jurisdiction by the subordinate courts.
Allahabad High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 1 - S Chandra - Full Document

Baboo Ram vs Shiv Ashrey & Others on 30 August, 2011

Here Sri B.K. Gautam learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that the claim of the petitioner is unfounded and the reliance placed by Sri S.K. Verma, learned Senior Counsel in the case of Sher Singh Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation reported in 1969 ALJ 38 is misplaced, inasmuch as, the said decision has already been overruled by the Apex Court reported in AIR 1978 SC 1341. It is, therefore, urged that the said decision would not come to the aid of the petitioner. It is further submitted by Sri Gautam that the petitioner cannot claim inheritance under the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, as on the date when Hari Prasad @ Prasad died, according to the admitted case of the petitioner his father Ram Prasad was alive, and since the brother of the deceased, namely father of the petitioner, was alive, there was no occasion for the petitioner to succeed to the disputed land under Section 171 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. He further submits that personal law does not govern succession of holding under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, and therefore, the petitioner had no jural relationship so as to allow him to institute the suit and continue to claim rights of adverse possession over the land in dispute or any declaration over the same. It is further contended that Section 8 read with Sections 9 and 11 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the petitioner could not have succeeded even otherwise, as a Class II heir as claimed by the petitioner. There cannot be a dispute that Section 171 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 is a provision for succession to the holding of a Bhumidhari, Asami or lease holder. The said section does not make provisions of succession to a trespasser. The petitioner's uncle Hari Prasad @ Prasad was at the best a trespasser as he had not got his rights declared as a Bhumidhar as on the date of the institution of the suit. His name was continued and entered in the revenue records as a trespasser. There was, therefore, no formal declaration in his favour as a Bhumidhar over the land in dispute so as to allow the petitioner to claim succession. The said contention can be understood in the context of Section 171 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. If the petitioner succeeds in getting a declaration, only then he succeeds to the holding of late Hari Prasad @ Prasad. Even otherwise unless the petitioner is able to prove his possession that may be liable for being tacked as urged, he does not succeed as an heir. What has to be established is a jural relationship to institute a proceeding for such declaration.
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - A P Sahi - Full Document

Raj Bahadur And Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 10 May, 2024

21. The judgment relied by learned Standing Counsel in the case of Preetam Singh (supra) wherein it has been held that the Assistant Director of Consolidation should not have fettered in doing complete justice between the parties when the entire matter was before him. The relevant para no. 6 of the said judgment has already been quoted in the preceding paragraph no. 19 (a) of the present judgment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next