Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.46 seconds)
Adhunik Power And Natural Resources ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 18 July, 2018
cites
Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908
Section 3 in Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Mahabir Mahto & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 27 August, 2012
11. It would thus be clear that sub-section (5) of Section 49 of
the CNT Act empowers only the State Government to annul such
transfer at any time within 12 years, if it finds that the consent of the
Deputy-Commissioner was obtained in contravention of the provisions
7
of sub-section (1) and (2) by misrepresentation, or by fraud. In the
present case, the transfer of the land made after obtaining permission
of the Deputy Commissioner has been annulled by the Land Reforms
Deputy Collector, Seraikella, who had no jurisdiction under the CNT
Act to annul the same. Moreover, the said order has not been passed
under sub-section (5) of Section 49 of the CNT Act, rather in a
mutation proceeding, whereby the order of dispossession of the
petitioner has been passed which was not permissible in view of the
judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case
of "Mahabir Mahto" (supra).
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Indian Succession Act, 1925
R.N.Kapoor @ Rajendra Nath Kapoor, vs State Of U.P., & Another on 2 February, 2010
In the case of "Shri Rajendra Nath Kapoors Vs. State
of Bihar & Ors." reported in 1990 BLJ (Res) 352, the Division
Bench of the Patna High Court held as under:
1