Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)The Punjab Land Revenue Rules
Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Raja Ram Alias Rajender vs Tehsildar-Cum-Assistant Collector, ... on 1 August, 2001
Effect of offence cannot be wiped out by any subsequent order.
It is also submitted by counsel for respondent No.2 that, by any means,
since the Sanad Takseem had been issued in the partition proceedings and
the entries in the form of record of rights had also been made in the
jamabandies, therefore, otherwise also, the Financial Commissioner was not
competent to entertain any revision. If the petitioners had any grouse
against the partition proceedings, and entries in the Jamabandi, then they
should have approached the Civil Court as provided under Section 45 of the
Punjab Land Revenue Act. Counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon
Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Tarlok Singh v.
Financial Commissioner Co-operation, Punjab, Chandigarh and others,
2004(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 548, as well as, upon another Division Bench
judgment rendered in Raja Ram alias Rajender v. Tehsildar-cum-
Assistant Collector, Hissar, 2001(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 739.
Balbir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 10 November, 1994
Counsel has also relied upon judgments of a Single
Bench of this Court rendered in Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab etc., 2009
(5) R.C.R. (Civil) 249 and Ram Gopal v. State of Haryana and others,
2009(11) R.C.R. (Civil) 336. Accordingly, it is reiterated by counsel for the
petitioners that due to the stay order passed by the Financial Commissioner,
the petitioners continued to enjoy the status of co-sharers and being co-
sharers, no FIR could have been lodged against them.
Godhan Singh @ Amar Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 17 November, 2009
Even the learned State Counsel has relied upon a Division
Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Amar Khan and others v. State
of Punjab and others, 2009(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 741 and another judgment
rendered in CWP No.17574 of 2013 - Naurata Singh v. Financial
Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab and others decided on 27.02.2017, to
buttress the argument that the Financial Commissioner does possess the
power to entertain the revision in partition proceedings even after Sanad
Takseem is prepared. Hence, he has also submitted that the initial stay order
passed by the Financial Commissioner was perfectly valid.