Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.48 seconds)P.V. Bheemasena Rao And Anr. vs Sirgiri Peda Yella Reddi And Ors. on 8 January, 1954
ii. Bheemsena Rao vs. Yella Reddi, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1350;
iii.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 41 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Sri Mahant Prayag Doss Jeevaru vs Abbupillai And Ors. on 26 February, 1929
i. Prayag Doss vs. Abbupillai, reported in AIR 1931 Madras 370;
M. Liaquat Ali, Proprietor, M.C. ... vs Sri Brahadambal Temple, ... on 27 June, 2002
M.Liaquat Ali, Pudukottai v. Sri Brahadambal Temple, Pudukottai
Devasthanam, reported in (2002) 3 MLJ 296;
Rajathi vs The Principal Secretary & Commissioner ... on 22 February, 2013
v. Rajathi & another vs. The Principal Secretary & Commissioner of Land
Administration & Another, reported in 2013-2-L.W. 485.
A. Shankar Suresh, A. Rajeswari And ... vs Revenue Divisional Officer And Ors. on 6 September, 2007
11. By referring to the notification, dated 23.05.2014, under Rule 19(4) of
the Rules, it is submitted that the legal heirs of the Aarachar have been
notified that they have been failed to render service as required under
Section 21(7)(b) of the Act and they have not preferred any appeal as against
the said order. Further, it is submitted that the impugned order is only an
order canceling the illegal mutation and the second respondent is vested with
the power under the Revenue Standing Orders to conduct an enquiry and such
power could be exercised suo motu or on application or by a person interested
and in this regard, Revenue Standing Order 31(8) was referred to. In support
of his contention, the learned Additional Advocate General placed reliance on
the decision of this Court in the case of A.Shankar Suresh v. Revenue
Divisional Officer, reported in (2007) 6 MLJ 955.