Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Court: mumbai Page 1 of about 6 results (0.023 seconds)

Jun 06 2006 (HC)

Shiv Shyam Sales Enterprises. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Two ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2006(5)BomCR193

..... such order passed in appeal, a revision was not maintainable. the petitioner therein had objected to the scheme which was framed under the provisions of east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948. the said objection was rejected by the consolidation officer and therefore, the petitioner filed appeal under section 21[3] before the settlement officer, but that appeal also failed. the petitioner thereafter ..... in paragraph nos. 12 to 14 of the order. further the hon'ble apex court has concluded that the remedy of revision contemplated by section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, was only in relation to the original order passed by the officer. in the facts of the present case it is apparent that the bombay sales tax ..... . section 21[4] provided for appeal to state government. the petitioners appeal was heard by assistant director of consolidation of holdings, ambala to whom the governments powers and functions concerning the appeal had been delegated under section 41[1] of the act. the said officer allowed the appeal of petitioner, and one shri harisingh -respondent no. 2 before the hon ..... there was any mistake or error apparent on the face of record of this case to enable the respondent no. 3 to exercise jurisdiction under section 62 of the act. we hold that respondent no. 3 did not possess jurisdiction to deliver verdict on the said issue after expiry of two years from the date of his original order. 12 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 1974 (HC)

H.B. Munshi, Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay and anr. Vs. the Orient ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : [1974]34STC113(Bom)

..... of mr. chagla for more than one reason. in the first place, the enactment with which the supreme court was concerned dealt with consolidation and prevention of fragmentation of holdings under the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948. the objects of the enactment were to pool together the entire lands held by different persons in a village and redistribute the same ..... fact that the statute with which we are concerned is a taxing statute and contains provisions of different types altogether, then what was contained in the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, which was dealt by the supreme court, the ratio of that decision would clearly be inapplicable to this case, where we are concerned with the ..... with the supreme court in that case, the court took the view that the provisions of section 41(1) read with section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, should be so construed that an order passed by an officer appointed by the state government under section 41(1) should be deemed to be an ..... chagla also relied, it must be observed that the case before the supreme court arose under the relevant provisions contained in the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948. one of the objects of the act was to pool together the entire lands held by different persons in a village and redistribute the same among them on a more .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 1967 (HC)

Sulochana Dadaji Vs. Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1968Bom88; (1967)69BOMLR797; 1967MhLJ689

..... the state government was questioned. the majority decision of the supreme court was in the following terms:'where the state government has, under section 41(1) of the east punjab holdings(consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, delegated its power given under section 21(4) to hear appeals to an officer, an order passed by such officer is an order passed by the state ..... of judicial functions were considered by their lordships of the supreme court in roopchand v. state of punjab, : air1963sc1503 . under section 21(4) of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, the state government had powers to hear appeals against orders passed under that act. these powers were delegated to a subordinate officer and the delegate made an order in exercise of ..... government itself and not an order passed by any officer under this act' within the meaning of section 42. the order contemplated by section 42 is an order passed ..... we are taking, it is not necessary to consider the other submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. we may however mention that admittedly the collector proceeded to hold the so-called further inquiry and caused an inspection to be made by the sub-divisional officer behind the back of the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 2002 (HC)

Sambappa S/O Babappa Teli Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the Of ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR252; 2003(4)BomCR374

..... strong reliance on theconstitution bench judgment of the apex court in roopchand vs . state of punjab and another : air1963sc1503 . in roop chands case the apexcourt was considering certain provisions of eastpunjab holdings (consolidation and prevention offragmentation) act (punjab 50 of 1948).22. shri deshpande, learned advocate broughtto my notice the majority view whereby the apex courtwhile ..... interpreting section 42 of that act held thatunless the statute specifically provides for arevision, one cannot assume jurisdiction andentertain ..... it was clarified that thepetitioner in the case in hand, was requiredto forward the revision application beforethe cabinet minister and having not done so,nothing prevented the cabinet minister fromcalling the file for his consideration andpassing the impugned order. as alreadystated above, the rules of business readwith instructions and the standing ..... disputedportion of 3 acres 32 gunthas is held andpossessed by the appellant. the revenuerecord needs to be corrected accordingly.the lower court has erred in holding thatthe appellant claims the relief to correctthe pot hissa record. in fact, the reliefclaimed by the appellant is correction ofrecord of rights for which .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 08 2006 (HC)

Jayant S/O Vasantrao Dhole Vs. Additional Commissioner and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2007(1)ALLMR265; 2007(1)MhLj850

..... government to its subordinate and the subordinate in exercise of those powers passes order. the provisions of section 41(1) and section 42 of east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, are considered by the hon'ble apex court in this light and the findings recorded in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 are important. ..... of present case, this court is not concerned with section 209 of the code. section 210 permits the person owning such immovable property or holding any interest therein by virtue of a title acquired before such sale, to apply to collector to have sale set aside within 30 days of ..... been set aside. he has also pointed out the judgment of the hon'ble apex court in the case of roop chand v. state of punjab reported at : air1963sc1503 , to contend that the entire auction proceedings conducted by the sub-divisional officer and orders if any passed by him under ..... application is that the society is under liquidation and hence as per provisions of sections 107 and 163(2) of the maharashtra co-operative societies act, 1960, no legal proceedings can lie or proceeded with against the society under liquidation. the application only mentions the size of land and ..... attack in revision was as the society was under liquidation, in view of provisions of sections 107 and 163(2) of maharashtra co-operative societies act, 1960, the property could not have been subjected to auction and that the auction consideration was inadequate.3. it appears that when these revision .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 1992 (HC)

G.J. Kanga and anr. Vs. S.S. Basha

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1992(3)BomCR582; (1993)95BOMLR632

..... case the dy. municipal commissioner. in the case of harbhajan singh v. karam singh, reported in : [1966]1scr817 , the supreme court was concerned with the provisions of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act. the question which was posed before the supreme court was whether an order made under section 42 could be reviewed by the state government. this is what the supreme ..... court has held :'there is no provision in the act granting express power of review to the state government with regard to an order made under section 42 of the act. ..... application of harbhajan singh under section 42 of the act. it follows therefore that the order of the director dated 29th august ..... in the absence of any such express power, it is manifest that the director, consolidation of holdings, cannot review his previous order of 3rd april, 1958 dismissing the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 2003 (HC)

Smt. Kuwarben Chhabildas Patel Through Her C.A. Pratapsingh Chhabildas ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR662; 2003(5)BomCR44; 2003(3)MhLj948

..... v. pradyumansinghji arjunsinghji, : air1970sc1273 .5. in harbhajan singh's case (supra), the apex court was concerned with an order under the fast punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act and the order passed under that act was reviewed by the director, consolidation of holdings. the apex court held that since there was no express power granted to the state government to review an order made under section ..... 47 of the said act, the director could not review his previous order. in the case of patel (supra), the apex court was ..... on behalf of respondent no. 4 had no authority to do so. on 20th july 1998, respondent no. 2 i.e. the slum tribunal, allowed the review application holding that it was maintainable. on 11th august 1998, the petitioner filed writ petition no. 1697 of 1998 challenging the order of review dated 20th july 1998 on the ground that ..... concerned with the saurashtra land reforms act and an order passed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 2014 (HC)

Anant Kavlekar and Others Vs. Mrs. Milan Dantie Alias Anita Dantie and ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

..... be in force. 21. section 61 of the code provides as under: 61. partition. (1) subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force for the prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings, a holding may be partitioned on the decree of a civil court or on application of co-holders in the manner hereinafter prescribed. (2) if in any ..... revenue and is shown in the revenue papers as bearing a separate 'khasra' number. at p. 205 the learned judges observed: "moreover, the word 'estate' as defined in the punjab land revenue act, in our opinion, applies to agricultural lands only and does not include any other class of property. as soon as agricultural land is converted into building sites, whether in ..... of agricultural land and therefore, the word 'estate' is not applicable to such land. in the case supr), the high court of punjab was concerned with the word 'estate' as defined in the punjab land revenue act. the said punjab land revenue act is not applicable to the state of goa. the reliance placed upon the judgment (supra) is therefore out of place. 25. in ..... revenue, have been built upon and have no longer the characteristic of agricultural land. in this regard, he relied upon rameshwar math v/s. jageshwar nath and others? [air 1953 punjab 250]. he therefore submitted that the substantial questions of law deserves to be answered in the affirmative and second appeal deserves to be allowed. 14. on the other hand, mr .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 1957 (HC)

Parashram Damodhar Vaidya Vs. the State of Bombay and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1957Bom252; (1957)59BOMLR616

..... terminations, less than half the area of the land leased to him, or in such a manner as will result in a contravention of the provisions of the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act, 1947, or if the tenant has become a member of a co-operative farming society and so long as he continues to be such member. the imposition of ..... and 32d confer upon the tenants the right to choose the lands to be purchased when the tenant holds land separately from more than one landlord, and enable a tenant even to purchase a fragment notwithstanding the provision of the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act.34. by section 32f there is a further extension of the period for exercising of the right of ..... and khatas were prepared under the land revenue code only in respect of occupants and superior holders of land. under section 10-a of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1948, the duty to pay land revenue and irrigation cess and also the local fund cess is imposed upon the tenant: thereby the primary liability to pay the assessment is shifted ..... was in material partsidentical with entry no. 18 in the ii list of theseventh schedule to the constitution. theirlordships held in that case that under entryno. 21 the punjab restitution of mortgagedlands act, 1938, which provided for the restitution of possession of lands mortgaged under theact to the mortgagors on less onerous terms andfor the extinguishment of the mortgages, wasintra vires .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 2016 (HC)

Eknath Daval Thete (since deceased) through his legal heirs Vs. Ganpat ...

Court : Mumbai

..... kumar and anr. vs. suresh pal, reported in air 1985 punjab and haryana 361 (paragraphs 3 to 7). 18. the next submission of the learned counsel for the defendant no.2 is that in view of section 36-a of the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act, 1947 (for short the said fragmentation act), the civil court had no jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal ..... with any question which was by or under this act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the state government or any officer or ..... submit that the said bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act, 1947 is a complete code in itself and thus adjudication which could be done only by the competent authority could not be determined by a civil court. he submits that jurisdiction of the civil court is barred by law of limitation under section 36-a of the said fragmentation act. the only question is ..... by the learned counsel for the defendant no.2 is concerned, the said judgment is delivered by the supreme court under the provisions of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1948. it has been held by the supreme court that whether the plaintiff was an agriculturist or not, was the issue which could be conclusively decided by the mamlatdar s .....

Tag this Judgment!


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