Skip to content


Bhagat Ram and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1967SC927; (1967)69PLR287; [1967]2SCR165
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 12, 31A and 32; East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 - Sections 2, 18, 19(1), 20(3), 20(4), 21, 21(2), 21(3), 21(4), 23A, 24, 36 and 42; Consolidation Rules - Rule 4; Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887
AppellantBhagat Ram and ors.
RespondentState of Punjab and ors.
Excerpt:
.....of income from land for panchayat under scheme - reservation of income from land against second proviso to section 23a. - indian evidence act, 1872 section 24: [dr. arijit pasayat & ashok kumar ganguly, jj] extra-judicial confession - 'confession' is a statement made by an accused which must either admit in terms the offence, or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. the dictionary meaning of the word 'statement' is "act of stating; that which is stated; a formal account, declaration of facts etc. while dealing with a stand of extra judicial confession, court has to satisfy itself that the same was voluntary and without any coercion and undue influence . extra judicial confession can form the basis of conviction if persons before whom it is stated to.....orderthe scheme made in respect of the consolidation of village dolike sunderpur is hit by the second proviso to art. 31a of the constitution in so far as it reserves 100 kanals 2 marlas for the income of the panchayat. the state is directed to modify the scheme to bring it into accord with the second proviso as interpreted in the majority judgment : [1967]2scr143 in civil appeal no. 1018 of 1966 and to proceed according to law. there would be no order as to costs.
Judgment:
ORDER

The scheme made in respect of the consolidation of village Dolike Sunderpur is hit by the second proviso to Art. 31A of the Constitution in so far as it reserves 100 kanals 2 marlas for the income of the Panchayat. The State is directed to modify the scheme to bring it into accord with the second proviso as interpreted in the majority judgment : [1967]2SCR143 in Civil Appeal No. 1018 of 1966 and to proceed according to law. There would be no order as to costs.


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