Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.35 seconds)Madhav Pandey And Ors. vs Board Of Revenue And Ors. on 8 March, 2002
Secondly, regarding the entertainability of the writ petition against the summary proceedings by relying upon the judgment passed by this Court in the cases of Madhav Pandey and others versus Board of Revenue and others, reported in 2002(2) AWC 1311; in which this Court has held that mutation proceeding is summary in nature and writ petition against the summary proceedings is not entertainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In paragraph No. 26 of the said judgement, it has been categorically held as under:-
Section 34 in The U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 [Entire Act]
Raghav Singh @ Munna Lal And Another vs State Of U.P. on 25 January, 2010
9. Learned counsel for the State-respondents has raised objections that firstly, there is no infirmity and illegality in the order passed by the courts below in rejecting the case of the petitioner by relying upon the case of Munna Singh Raghav versus State of U.P. & Ors. passed in WRIT-C No. 13465 of 2023, wherein this Court has dealt with almost an identical situation and held that the inordinate delay in filing the restoration application by the son of the testator is the abuse of the process of law.
Amritansh Pandey vs State Of U.P. And Anothers on 18 March, 2021
10. Recently, this Court in the case of Amritansh Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others bearing Writ-C No. 2620 of 2023 decided on 2.8.2023 (2023:AHC:167189), has held that no substantive rights of the parties are decided or are likely to be decided in the mutation proceedings. Paragraph No. 19 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:-
1