MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, SHUBHA MEHTA
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Paliram Charity Trust – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J.
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20.08.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1 has been allowed, setting aside order dated 25.04.2003 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short ‘the Board of Revenue’) and the appellants have been directed to forthwith record the land in dispute in the name of Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner-trust, however, with the observation that Respondent No. 1-trust shall adhere to fulfill the undertakings given in proceedings before the learned Single Judge.
2. Case of Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner is that its predecessor-ininterest namely, Seth Pali Ram and Brij Lal (Respondents No. 4 and 5 in writ petition), bought the subject land in the year 1942 from one Thakur Raghuvir Singh (who according to Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner was Thikanedar of Bissau). According to Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner, the land in dispute was subsequently transferred in favour of Respondent No. 1-Paliram Charity Trust by Seth Pali Ram and Brij Lal. Further, Seth Pali Ram wanted to establish a pasture land for cows and in order to earn pious deeds, Seth Pali Ram pu
Air India Statutory Corporation and Others vs. United Labour Union and Others
Dr. Kuntesh Gupta vs. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) and Others
Government of India vs. The Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals, Madras and Others
Indian National Congress vs. Institute of Social Welfare and Others
Mansaram vs. S.P. Pathak and Others
State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Nishant Sareen
State of Gujarat vs. Patil Raghav Natha and Others
State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha and Others
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Balkrishan Nathani and Others
Thakur Amar Singhji and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
The Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the Revenue Appellate Authority's well-reasoned findings based solely on the non-production of evidence, which was not a deliberate act of ....
The exercise of revisional powers under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act must be done within a reasonable time, and the absence of fraud or misrepresentation precludes the reopening of a decr....
Tenants cultivating land for deities do not acquire Khatedari rights unless they have a direct relationship with the state, as clarified by the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 ....
The legal principle established is that tenants cultivating land for a deity do not confer tenancy rights to the deity, and such land becomes Khatedari of the tenant under the Rajasthan Land Reforms ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.