REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAMKISHAN Appellant

V/S

STATE OF U.P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

H.P. V. KESHAV RAM [REFERRED TO]
BINDESHWARI VS. BOARD OF REVENUE AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,AURANGABAD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE VS. M PAPAIAH [REFERRED TO]
GURU AMARJIT SINGH VS. RATTAN CHAND [REFERRED TO]
SAWARNI VS. INDER KAUR [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN VERMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ BHAN VS. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
NARAIN PRASAD AGGARWAL VS. STATE OF M P [REFERRED TO]
FAQRUDDIN DEAD VS. TAJUDDIN DEAD [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
NARASAMMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
JAIPAL VS. BOARD OF REVENUE [REFERRED TO]
LAL BACHAN VS. BOARD OF REVENUE U P LUCKNOW [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR RAJBHAR VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
MOHD SHAFIQUE VS. KHATOON BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. VASAVI CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. [REFERRED TO]
T. RAVI & ANR. VS. B. CHINNA NARASIMHA [REFERRED TO]
BHIMABAI MAHADEO KAMBEKAR VS. ARTHUR IMPORT AND EXPORT COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
AJIT KAUR VS. DARSHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
HARISH CHANDRA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND 5 OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
PRAHLAD PRADHAN VS. SONU KUMHAR [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Dheerendra Kumar Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

(2.) In the light of proposed order notice to private respondent no. 4 is dispensed with.

(3.) Present proceedings arise out of application for mutation proceedings where objections were filed by one Savitri Devi, pertaining to the property which was recorded in the name of Sardar S/o Maiku who was the recorded tenure holder of Gata Nos. 192, 346, 348, situated at Village - Sandila, Pargana - Maurawan, Tehsil - Purwa, District - Unnao. Tehsildar, Tehsil - Purwa, District - Unnao by means of order dtd. 3/3/2025, allowed the objections preferred by the private respondents, holding that after death of Sardar, the recorded tenure holder, land was recorded in the name of Ganga Dei W/o Sardar. After Ganga Dei, land was recorded in the name of Savitri Devi on the basis of will dtd. 14/9/1993. The Tehsildar was of the view that Savitri Devi was not daughter of Ganga Dei who was sister of Savitri and near relative of Sardar and Ganga Dei. As the petitioner could not establish any reasonable connection with Ganga Dei and Sardar, he disbelieved the will dtd. 14/9/1993, and hence rejected the claim of petitioner.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAMKISHAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address