Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.36 seconds)Section 35 in U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 [Entire Act]
Sudhir Kumar Goswami vs Dist. Director Of Consolidation/ ... on 23 August, 2011
9. So far as the judgment in the case of Sudhir Kumar Goswami (supra) is concerned that was a case in which a revision had been rejected by the Consolidation Officer aggrieved against which the petitioner had filed the petition before this Court.
Section 6 in U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 [Entire Act]
Madan Shah And Ors. vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation And Ors. on 16 March, 2007
11. So far as the case of Madan Shah (supra) is concerned that was a case whereby the petition had been filed challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Again the said order was not an order passed under Section 34 of the Code, 2006 and thus in all the three cases the question, as has been raised in the preliminary objection raised by the learned Standing counsel was not involved. Hence, the said judgments would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. So far as the D.O dated 12.12.2014 is concerned, again the same does not pertain to an order which may have been passed under the provision of Section 34 of the Code, 2006.
Rajendra Prasad Dixit And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 August, 2017
Thus, it was not an order under Section 34 of the Code, 2006 which had been challenged in the case of Rajendra Prasad Dixit (supra).
1