Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.43 seconds)
Khursheed Ali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 October, 2024 cites

Ranveer Singh vs State Of M.P on 21 January, 2009

55. In the present case, Nazul No-Objection was granted by order dated 14-6-2010. Appeal was filed by Sanjay Anand Lalwani against Mutation Order and NOC granted in favor of Petitioner. The said appeal was filed on 9-6-2011. Further, this Court has already come to a conclusion that Naib- Tahsildar Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh and the then S.D.O. were out and out to mutate the name of Petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that as soon as the Collector, came to know about the entire scam, he issued show cause notice to Petitioner on 17-8-2011, thereby calling upon to explain as to why suo motu power of revision be not exercised under Section 50 of MPLR Code. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the suo motu exercise of power was barred by time, or was hit by law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh (supra). Whether Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh is liable to pay any mesne profits to the State Govt. on account of his misadventures and unauthorized act of entering into compromise?
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 103 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal vs Chetu Batte on 26 February, 1976

and "Transfer of Ownership" for mutation purpose. Summary proceedings as contemplated in Rule 32 are only for the purpose of recording of rights of parties. It Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 16 W.P. No.17777/2011 nowhere, gives authority to Tahsildar to go into the question of title and decide the title by leading evidence in the proceedings. Tahsildar on his own accord cannot record evidence and decide the title arising out of Will. It is the domain of Civil Courts only and understandably so because Civil Court has all necessary tools of adjudication like proper pleadings, summoning of witnesses, recording of evidence, marshaling and appreciation of evidence and other ancillary mechanism along with trained judicial minds. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal vs. Chetu Batte, 1976 M.P.L.J. (F.B.) 325 = AIR 1976 MP 160 categorically held in somewhat similarly pleaded facts as under:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 55 - Full Document
1   2 Next