Skip to content


Joginder Singh and ors. Vs. the State and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ No. 127 of 1966
Judge
Reported inAIR1972P& H196; 1974CriLJ117
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226; East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 - Sections 19 and 21(3)
AppellantJoginder Singh and ors.
RespondentThe State and ors.
Appellant Advocate G.S. Grewal, Adv.
Respondent Advocate G.C. Garg, for Adv. General (Haryana) and; Harphul Singh, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - 3 did not obtain the advice of the village committee constituted under rule 4 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949, although it was incumbent upon him to do so before finalization of the scheme, as provided in section 14 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1948. 2. the petition must fail for the simple reason that the ground on which the scheme is now challenged was never put..........3 did not obtain the advice of the village committee constituted under rule 4 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949, although it was incumbent upon him to do so before finalization of the scheme, as provided in section 14 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1948. 2. the petition must fail for the simple reason that the ground on which the scheme is now challenged was never put forward by the petitioner in the form of objections which they had the right to prefer either under the provisions of section 19 of the act to respondent no. 3 or under those of section 21 (3) thereof to the settlement officer (respondent no. 2). not having availed of the remedies provided to them under the act.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The sole ground on which the scheme of consolidation of holdings prepared for village Kalianwali in Tehsil Sirsa, District Hissar, is challenged in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is that the concerned Consolidation Officer, who figures as respondent No. 3 did not obtain the advice of the village Committee constituted under Rule 4 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, although it was incumbent upon him to do so before finalization of the scheme, as provided in Section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1948.

2. The petition must fail for the simple reason that the ground on which the scheme is now challenged was never put forward by the petitioner in the form of objections which they had the right to prefer either under the provisions of Section 19 of the Act to respondent No. 3 or under those of Section 21 (3) thereof to the Settlement Officer (respondent No. 2). Not having availed of the remedies provided to them under the Act itself, they cannot be held entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

3. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.

4. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //