Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Court: punjab and haryana Page 1 of about 317 results (0.063 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!

Aug 10 2005 (HC)

Sohna Ram Vs. the Director of Consolidation of Holdings and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2006)142PLR129

..... without waiting for its outcome, respondent no. 2 filed a petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act), 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), before the director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, praying therein that the revenue record, prepared by the consolidation authorities, be rectified, the entries, reflecting the petitioners as owners be set aside, as these ..... under section 42 of the act, was filed in 1985, after unexplained delay of 23 years and, therefore, should have been rejected by the director at the very outset. the limitation for impugning an order of the consolidation officer, is six months, as prescribed under rule 18 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949 (hereinafter ..... referred to as 'the rules).11. counsel for the respondent no. 2 contends that on 23.1.1961, respondent no. 2 was a minor. that being so, the director rightly held that the sale deed, did not bind respondent no. 2 as it was null and void. by setting aside the orders of the consolidation ..... way of the present writ petition, prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 7.11.1985 passed by the director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, chandigarh.2. a brief narrative of the facts would be appropriate.3. lal singh, respondent no. 2, was joint owner of 1/72 share .....

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!

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!

May 18 2005 (HC)

Gram Panchayat Through Its Sarpanch Dalip Singh Vs. the Director, Cons ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2005)141PLR276

..... of ceitiorari for quashing the order dated 6.8.1996 (annexure p-3), passed, by the director, consolidation or holdings, (respondent no. l) on the plea that the director consolidation or holdings, exercising powers under the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short herein after referred to as 'the consolidation act'), had no jurisdiction to decide whether the land, in dispute, vested or did not vest in the gram ..... right holders. consequently, the director consolidation officer, patiala for partition and distribution of the land in dispute amongst respondents no. 2 to 34, according to ..... short herein after referred to as '1961 act') and, therefore, did not vest in the gram panchayat. the mutation, sanctioned, without issuance of notice to the petitioner, had no legal value. it was also held that the land, prescribed in the schedule appended to the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short herein after referred to as 'consolidation act') and, therefore, should revert back to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 2005 (HC)

Gram Panchayat Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2005)141PLR6

..... .12,1991, passed by the director, land records, punjab exercising powers, under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short herein after referred to as 'the consolidation act').3. the petitioner-gram panchayat impugns the order of the director land records, punjab, passed while exercising powers of the director consolidation, on the plea that authorities under the consolidation act have no jurisdiction to decide whether the land ..... was to be paid to the gram panchayat, filed a petition under section 42 of the consolidation act before the director of land record, punjab, exercising the powers, under section 42 of the consolidation act, praying therein that during consolidation an excessive pro-rata cut had been applied to their land holding and, therefore, this excessive land could not have vested in the gram panchayat. vide order ..... has been satisfactorily explained and, therefore, the director land records, exercising powers under the consolidation act, committed no illegality in passing the impugned order.11. reliance for the above proposition is placed upon a full bench judgment of this court reported as sh. jagtar singh v. additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab and anr., 1984 p.l.j. 223 (f.b.). it is further contended .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 2005 (HC)

Rachhpal Singh and anr. Vs. the Addl. Director Consolidation of Holdin ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2005)140PLR419

..... were incorporated in jamabandi for the year 1979-1980 (annexure p/2). still dissatisfied, respondent no. 2 again filed an application under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (in short, 'the act'), claiming following relief:-'(i) that the shape of his abadi plot be made rectangular.(ii) that he should be given area under his garden equivalent to his ..... observed that an additional director of consolidations, exercising powers of the government under section 42 of the act, was not empowered to review his earlier orders passed on merits, even though ..... established law, authorities, exercising powers under section 42 of the act, are quasi judicial in nature and have no power to review. it has been so held by a full bench of this court in deep chand and anr. v. additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab jullundur, and anr., (1964)66 the punjab law reporter 318.12. in that case, it was ..... with regard to an order made under section 42 of the act. 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 application of harbhajan singh under section 42 of the act. it follows therefore that the order of the director dated 29th .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 23 2005 (HC)

Piara Singh Vs. Additional Director C/H and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2005)140PLR675

..... proceedings that suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 1.11.1983. private respondents then approached respondent no. 1 under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (in short, the 'act) by contending that during consolidation proceedings, they were allotted land separately, as exclusive owners and they had wrongly been shown in subsequent records as co-sharers alongwith petitioner ..... khewat, as per their entitlement. they continued to be shown as such throughout. in the year, 1979, petitioner moved an application under section (i) of the punjab land revenue act, 1887, for partition of the joint khewat, before the revenue authorities. private respondents put up appearance and raised question of title. objection was dismissed. they went in ..... under challenge were passed.10. argument of counsel for petitioner, that the application under section 42 of the act was moved after a period of limitation, is also tenable.11. it is apparent from the records that consolidation proceedings came to an end in the year 1963. throughout, thereafter, the petitioner and the private respondents continued ..... has no jurisdiction whatsoever to ignore order passed by the competent civil court and also by the revenue authorities under the provisions of the punjab land revenue act, 1887. powers under section 42 of the act are very limited. respondent no. 1 has jurisdiction to interfere only if there exists some defect in effecting the repartition and not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 1999 (HC)

Amar Singh (Died) Through His Lrs. and ors. Vs. the Director, Consolid ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2000)124PLR82

..... 4 was not satisfied with the major portion allotted to him and therefore, filed a petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, (in short the act) before the additional director, consolidation of holdings, and claimed that he be given chahi land in square no. 2, 3, 4, 5 50/24 and 25. ..... and 4 and allotted area falling in killa no. 6/5/2 and 1/25/2 to respondents 3 and 4. in my view, the director consolidation, namely, respondent no. 1 committed a gross illegality in reviewing earlier order dated 12.5.1977. as noticed earlier, vide order dated 12.5. ..... kotha along with the pipe, then no action be taken in that regard. petition under section 42 of the act was thus, rejected except the direction in regard to tubewell. on remand, the consolidation officer inspected the site on 8.4.1987 in the presence of the parties and their statements were also ..... 2.3. respondent no. 3 and 4 still filed a petition under section 42 of the act and notice of the same was given to the writ petitioners who brought to the notice of the director consolidation that the matter between the parties has already become final and no further directions are required ..... order, annexure p-3, passed by the director, consolidation of holdings, haryana, vide which land has been taken away from the area of the petitioners and given to respondents 3 and 4.2. in brief, the facts are that as a result of consolidation in the village, a major area belonging to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 2004 (HC)

Gram Panchayat of Village Issi Vs. Director, Consolidation of Holdings ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2004)138PLR753

..... (for short, 'the act') for making good the alleged deficiency to the extent of one rupee and eight annas by making the follow- ing averments ..... respondent nos.2 and 3, who had participated in the consolidated proceedings, did not raise any objection or questioned the scheme till they filed a petition in 1982 under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 ..... 1. this petition is directed against orders dated 1.10.1982 (annexure p4) passed by additional director, consolidation of holdings punjab and 23.11.1984 (annexure p12) passed by director, consolidation of holdings, punjab (respondent no.l).2. the facts:-the consolidation scheme of village issi, tehsil dhuri, district sangrur was pre- pared, published and finalised in 1956. ..... of the petition filed by it under section 42 of the act, an application dated 23. i 1,1984 (annexure pll) was also filed on behalf of the petitioner for summoning the file of the case decided by additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab. however, without considering the averments contained in the petition filed .....

Tag this Judgment!


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