Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Page 1 of about 524 results (0.114 seconds)

Mar 19 1968 (HC)

Pala Singh Vs. State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1968P& H376

..... question raised with regard to the validity and vires of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (east punjab act 50 of 1948).2. the particular sub-section reads --14. (1) with the object of consolidating holdings in any estate or group of estates or any part thereof for the purpose of better cultivation of lands ..... in this petition is that in the village of the petitioners consolidation had already been done under the provisions of the punjab consolidation of holdings act, 1936 (punjab act 4 of 1936), sometime in the year 1944-45. the notification under sub-section (1) of section 14 of east punjab act 50 of 1948 in regard to this village was issued by the state government ..... sometime in 1962. this was something like seventeen years after the first consolidation under the provisions of punjab act 4 of ..... that case has no concern whatsoever with the present cases under east punjab act 50 of 1948. under the provisions of this statute the rightholders in an estate or estates in which consolidation goes on are not deprived of possession of their holdings until they are provided with substituted holdings in consequence of repartition. on appreciation of this, it has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 2002 (HC)

Jai Bhagwan and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2002VIIAD(Delhi)644; 99(2002)DLT696; 2002(63)DRJ580

..... under-mentioned cases for the purpose of better cultivation of lands herein and in exercise f the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 14 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (east punjab act no. 50 of 1948) as extended to the union territory of delhi, the ltd. governor of the national capital territory of delhi is pleased to declare his intention to make a ..... purposes of the village. 4. the said act was extended to the union territory of delhi by an appropriate notification ..... number, are residents of village khera kalan, delhi and hold bhoomidari rights in respect of agricultural land. they are said to be members of the gaon sabha of the said village. 3. east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 was enacted to provide for the compulsory consolidation of agricultural holdings and for presenting fragmentation of agricultural holdings in the state of punjab and for assignment or reservation of land for common .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 1967 (SC)

Johrimal Vs. Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1967SC1568; (1967)69PLR824; [1967]3SCR286

..... acting under s. 20 of the act. the scheme, among other things, provided that the owners of permanent ..... appeal is brought, by certificate, from the judgment of the punjab high court dated november 8, 1960, in letters patent appeal no. 284 of 1956. 2. for the consolidation of land holdings in village kheowara, a scheme was prepared by the consolidation officer under s. 14 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, (act l of 1948), hereinafter called the 'act', and the scheme was confirmed by the settlement officer ..... of the full bench was that the impugned order amounted to an alteration of the consolidation scheme and the state government had power, under s. 42 of the act as amendment by the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) (second amendment and validation) act (punjab act 27 of 1960), to make any change in the consolidation scheme subject to the requirements of that section. the present appeal is brought by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 13 1972 (HC)

Suraj Mal and anr. Vs. Manohar Lal

Court : Delhi

Reported in : ILR1973Delhi1016

..... them from taking possession of any land of the plaintiff in pursuance of the said order of the chief commissioner. consolidation proceedings under the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, herein after referred to as the consolidation act, were ordered in 1952. a scheme of consolidation of holdings was prepared but by an order passed in 1954 the chief commissioner ordered fresh revaluation of the land in the village ..... advantageous first to read certain relevant provisions of the consolidation act and the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation )rules, 1949, hereinafter called the consolidation rules, as applicable in delhi and also to read some of the relevant provisions of the punjab land revenue act, 1887. (5) it will also be necessary to appreciate the scheme of the consolidation act and the consolidation rules so as to understand the respective rights and ..... obligations of the parties in consolidation proceeding. the relevant provisions of the consolidation act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 10 1962 (SC)

Roop Chand Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1963SC1503; (1963)65PLR576; [1963]Supp(1)SCR539

..... will be entitled to the costs of this petition.kapur, j.25. the decision of this case depends upon the construction of two provisions of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, (punj. 50 of 1948), hereinafter termed 'the act'; those provisions are sections 21(4) and 42. the former section confers on the state government appellate powers and the latter the power to call for ..... sarkar, j.1. this petition under art. 32 of the constitution asks for a writ quashing an order purported to have been made under s. 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948. it is said that the order was entirely without jurisdiction and if allowed to stand, it would deprive the petitioner of certain lands and so wrongly affect his fundamental rights ..... an officer and as he is appointed under this act and has to perform duties relating to administration of this act, he must be held to be an officer under this act.' falshaw, j., as also bishan narain, j., were dealing with the pepsu holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act. this act however contained the same provisions as the act now before us though the sections were numbered differently .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 20 1964 (SC)

Ranjit Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1965SC632; (1965)0PLR563; [1965]1SCR82

..... mehnd of tehsil hansi in district hissar. proceedings for the consolidation of holdings are going on in these villages under the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act 1948 (act 50 of 1948). this act was amended on many occasions but we are concerned with it as amended by the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) (2nd amendment & validation) act (27 of 1960). in the present consolidation proceedings portions of lands from those commonly owned by the ..... have relevance and mention some of the cases decided under them one of which led to the second amendment act. 2. the consolidation act (50 of 1948) was passed to provide for the compulsory consolidation of agricultural holdings and for preventing the fragmentation of agricultural holdings. section 18 of the act provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, it shall be lawful for ..... any consolidation officer to direct inter alia : '(a) that any land specifically assigned for any common purpose shall cease to be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 2005 (HC)

Gram Panchayat Vs. Director Panchayats and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2005)141PLR54

..... as follows:-'we have-tested the impugned order of the director of land records, punjab, against which writ petition was rejected by the high court, on the anvil of the punjab village common lands (regulations) act, 1960 and the rules framed thereunder as well as the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 and the rules framed thereunder. it is clear that the proprietorship of the land involved ..... , filed by the petitioner-gram panchayat, under section 11 of the punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1961 (for short herein after referred to as 'the act'), has been dismissed.2. the respondent-proprietors filed a petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short herein after referred to as 'the act of 1948'), for partition of shamlat land. vide order dated 4.7 ..... .1991 (annexure p-2), the said application was dismissed as withdrawn. thereafter, the respondent-proprietors filed another application under section 42 of the act of 1948. vide order dated 4.2.1992 (annexure .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 15 2007 (HC)

Rajdhani Park Kalyan Karini Samiti Vs. Financial Commissioner and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 142(2007)DLT226; 2007(97)DRJ38

..... the financial commissioner dismissing case no. 119/1986, a revision petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 ('holdings act'). by the impugned order the financial commissioner affirmed the order dated 7.4.1986 passed by the settlement officer (consolidation) which order has been challenged by the rajdhani park kalyan karini samiti in the first mentioned ..... 7 of the said writ petition which reads as under:that the consolidation proceedings went on for years before the consolidation officer and without applying with the provisions of east punjab holdings and prevention of fragmentation act, the respondent no. 1 has prepared a scheme of the consolidation of holding of village mundka and under the said scheme the land of the ..... no. 6 and whether they formed part of the disputed lands.(vii) finally it was pointed out that the object of the holdings act being prevention of fragmentation, the present petitions if allowed would result in further fragmentation. it was prayed that the writ petitions ought to be thereforee dismissed.19. appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 trust ..... transferee of the right would be entitled to make a claim before the consolidation officer. the expression 'land owner' not having been defined in the holdings act, recourse has to be taken punjab land revenue act 1887.40. the expression 'land owner' under the punjab land revenue act reads as under:(2) 'land-owner' does not include a tenant or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 14 2006 (HC)

Sahib Singh Vs. the Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 137(2007)DLT111; 2006(92)DRJ29

..... in the present writ petition. we may first examine the relevant provisions of the dlra and the consolidation act.the legal position under the consolidation act11. as regards the compulsory consolidation of agricultural holdings, the relevant statute is the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 ('consolidation act') under which schemes for consolidation of agricultural holdings are prepared and individual land holders are allowed to have their khatas joint or separate and also allotment ..... s. muralidhar, j.1. this writ petition seeks the quashing of (a) an order dated 20.4.2000 passed by the consolidation officer, respondent no. 3, under section 21(2) of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 ('consolidation act') and (b) and order dated 23.5.2000 passed by the financial commissioner, respondent no. 2, dismissing the petitioner's revision petition against the order of respondent no ..... of land at a price fixed in the scheme itself. the consolidation act is consistent with the dlra although the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 2005 (HC)

Gram Panchayat Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2005)140PLR273

..... gair mumkin school ground. surjit singh grewal (respondent no. 3), one of the proprietors of the village, filed a petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short the 'act') in the year 1993 before the additional director (consolidation), punjab, for distribution of the said land among the proprietors of the village. after hearing the counsel for the parties, the additional director ..... contended by mr. a.k. chopra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 38, that the provisions of 18 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949 (for short the rules) are not applicable to the proceedings initiated under section 42 of the act. in support of his contentions mr. a.k. chopra has placed reliance on gram panchayat guhla majri v. director ..... , (consolidation) punjab, held that the gram panchayat has no right to management of the land vide the impugned order dated 26.8.1996 (annexure p-3) ordered distribution .....

Tag this Judgment!


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