Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)
Lehru And Ors. vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 24 August, 1982 cites

Keshardeo Chamria vs Radha Kissen Chamria And Othersradha ... on 30 October, 1952

18. Mr. Parekh, learned Counsel for Deenanath non-petitioner, vehemently contended that the Revenue Courts have committed no error of jurisdiction nor have committed any illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. On hearing the revision petitions, the Board of Revenue was right in dismissing the revision petitions and it did not commit any illegality or material irregularity, as this Court should not interfere in the orders of Board of Revenue in its certiorari jurisdiction. As regard the exercise of the revisional powers, Mr Parekh has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Keshardeo Chamria v. Radha Kishan Chamria and Ors. , Pandarang Dhandi Chough and Ors. v. Maruti Hari Jadhav and Ors. and on a Full Bench decision in Harak Chand v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1970 R.L.W. 320). This contention of the learned Counsel, in our opinion, has no merit, in view of the fact that the Board failed to consider the material and relevant documents and not only that, whatever documents have been considered, the same have not been considered in their correct perspective and thus, the Board committed an illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 164 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

Smt. Vimla Devi vs Jang Bahadur on 20 April, 1977

Reference in this connection may be made in Smt. Vimla Devi v. Jang Bahadur (1977 R.L.W. 3 6), wherein Joshi, J, has observed that the interference with discretionary order under Order XXVI, Rule 10, C.P.C., however, may be justified, if the lower court acts arbitrarily or perversely, capriciously or in disregard of sound legal principles or without all considering the relevant records.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

Sonawati & Ors vs Sri Ram & Anr on 21 September, 1967

The affidavits get corroboration from the khasra-girdhawaries. Thus, an ex facie conclusion should have been reached with regard to the possession and the nature and capacity of possession on the basis of the entire material on record. On consideration of the material, we are of the opinion, that it can be found ex-facie that the petitioners and prior to them, their ancestors are and were in occupation of the land as sub-tenants. The Board of Revenue rejected the Khasra-girdhawaries placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Somavati's case supra. That was a case,, in which, the defendant had resisted his suit on the basis that he was recorded as an occupant of the land in the khasra of 1356 Fasli (Ex. Article/1). The name of Pritarnsingh appeared in remarks column. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that in order that a person may be regarded as an adivasi of a piece of land, Section 20(b) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 requires that his name must be recorded in the khasra or khatauni as an occupant. Their Lordships further considered the impact of paragraph 87 of the Land Records Manual, which provided that an enquiry is to be made by a Patwari and if he thinks that a claiment is an occupant, he should enter the name in red-ink in khasra as "Kabiz, Sajhi "etc. Pritamsingh's name was not shown as 'Kabiz and Sajhi' nor was entry posted in red-ink. So, it was held by the Supreme Court that relying upon the entry of his name in the remarks column in the khasra for 1356, Fasli, Pritamsingh could not claim that he had established his rights as an adivasi of the land. This authority, in our opinion, can not be pressed into service and reliance can not be placed on it. The names of the present petitioners appear in the last column of khasra-girdhawaries as referred to above and the last column is meant for recording changes in the rights, possession etc. As a matter of fact, the names entered in the last column show as to who were in the actual possession over the land in question. It is true that the status as such is not mentioned in the last column. But, the question of status should have been taken into consideration in the light of the important documentary evidence in the form of Agreement of Sub-lease and Settlement Jamabandi of the year 1987.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 45 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next