Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)Smt. Hadisul Nisha vs Additional Commissioner (Judicial) ... on 25 June, 2021
In the light of the judgment passed in the case of Smt. Hadisul Nisha (supra), the writ petition does not fall within any of exceptions that have been carved out by this Court and as such the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not entertainable.
Vijay Shankar vs Addl. Commissioner (Administration) ... on 9 February, 2015
vi) Where the courts have not considered the matter on merits for example the courts have passed orders on restoration applications etc (Vijay Shankar v Addl Commissioner; 2015 (33) LCD 1073)"
Smt. Kalawati vs The Board Of Revenue And 6 Others on 5 April, 2022
6. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Smt. Kalawati versus Board of Revenue and others; reported in 2022: AHC: 48201.
Jitendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 September, 2021
In the case of Jitendra Singh versus State of Madhya Pradesh; reported in 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 487; Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold as under. For the sake of conveyance, paragraphs 5, 6 & 6.1 are reproduced as under:
Balwant Singh And Anr. vs Daulat Singh (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors. on 7 July, 1997
In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter.
Suraj Bhan & Ors vs Financial Commissioner & Ors on 16 April, 2007
6.1 In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only ?fiscal purpose?, i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court.
Suman Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 24 September, 2004
Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70...............?
Faqruddin (D) Th.Lrs vs Tajuddin (D) Th.Lrs on 16 May, 2008
Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70...............?
Municipal Corporation,Aurangabad vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 February, 2015
Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70...............?