Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.51 seconds)The Punjab Land Revenue Rules
Subhaga & Ors vs Shobha & Ors on 7 July, 2006
17. Learned Counsel for the respondent further cited Subhaga and Ors. v. Shobha and Ors. , it has been held by the Apex Court that:
Section 33 in The Punjab Land Revenue Rules [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Punjab Land Revenue Rules [Entire Act]
Section 39 in The Punjab Land Revenue Rules [Entire Act]
Section 40 in The Punjab Land Revenue Rules [Entire Act]
Jattu Ram vs Hakam Singh And Others on 15 September, 1993
9. On the basis of this judgment learned Counsel for the appellant argued that mutation of a property in revenue records does not create or extinguish title. But it is only relevant that the person in whose favour the mutation ordered is required to pay the land revenue. The same principle has been followed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sura) Bhan and Ors. v. Financial Commissioner and Ors. 2007 (103) RD J16 : 2007 (3) AWC 2329 (SC) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh and Ors. . In this judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court held-that:
Section 41 in The U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 [Entire Act]
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Manjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao (D) By L.Rs. & ... on 4 April, 2000
16. Learned Counsel for the respondent also cited State of Andhra Pradesh v. Majeti Laxmi Kantha Rao and Ors. AIR 2002 SC 2220, it has been held by the Apex Court that: