Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Page 2 of about 525 results (0.071 seconds)

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!

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!

Nov 25 2002 (HC)

Gian Chand Sharma Vs. State

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2003(66)DRJ566

..... consolidation committees were constituted in 1996. the consolidation scheme in respect of both the villages was prepared in 1996 and 1998. it is alleged that the petitioner is complicity with other revenue ..... the cr.p.c. a case under section 13(1)(d) of prevention of corruption act and section 120b ipc has been registered against him. the petitioner has working as a consolidation officer of village kanjhawata & pooth khurd, delhi in june, 1996. notification under section 14(1) of east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 was issued in 1988 and 1993 in respect of these villages and the ..... or the residential plots and how many of them were sanctioned such plots. accusation is made in ignorance of the provision of the east punjab holding (consolidation and prevention fragmentation) act which has provided elaborate mechanism for preparation of the scheme for consolidation of the holding and redressal of the grievances. the provision of a 100 feet wide road was made on the demand of the village advisory committee .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 1991 (HC)

Amar Singh and anr. Vs. Jai Parkash and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1997Delhi267; 44(1991)DLT198

..... 14.10.83 between afool chand etc. v. charon singh and that of the director of consolidation/financial commissioner delhi in case no. 380/83-ca decided on 3.7.86 under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter called the act) is null and void, illegal and in-operative qua the rights of the plaintiffs in ..... think the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners has great force. in the aforesaid authority, it was held, 'in the proviso to section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, it has been laid down that the power of varying or reversing an order, scheme or repartition, is to be exercised only after the fulfillment of the ..... statement in which they also took up a preliminary objection that the suit was barred under section 44 of the act. the trial court framed the following preliminary issue : (1)whether suit is barred by section 44 of east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act (4) it came to the conclusion that the suit was not barred by section 44 of the ..... act because serious allegations had been against the revenue authorities. (5) i have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 01 1997 (HC)

Umed Singh Vs. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and o ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 69(1997)DLT957

..... estate right holder, in village bamnolli, new delhi, has sought the quashing of notification issued by respondent no. 2 under the provisions of east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, as applicable to delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the consolidation act') and the consolidation of holding proceedings, which are in progress in village bamnolli; to restrain respondents i and 2 from continuing the proceedings and affecting the re-partition ..... under section 21 of the act and to quash rule 6 of the delhi holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1959, as amended by the (amendment) rules, 1996 ..... after the issuance of the notification under section 507 of the delhi municipal corporation act and the so called notification under section 12 of the delhi development act. (9) rule 6 of the delhi holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1956 stood amended by rule 4 of the delhi holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) (amendment) rules, 1996 by virtue of which clause (j)of the principal rules stood .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 2007 (HC)

Surjan Singh and ors. Vs. Financial Commissioner and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 142(2007)DLT123

..... , under article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioners question orders made by the financial commissioner in consolidation proceedings, in terms of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation ) act, 1948, as extended to delhi (called 'the act') in village mundka, delhi started in 1975. a scheme of consolidation was drawn up inviting applications for residential plots in the extended lal dora within thirty days from 1.4 ..... .76. the scheme was published and was confirmed by the settlement officer (consolidation) on 26.7.1976. in terms of ..... judgment reported as rajinder singh v. financial commissioner, delhi : 122(2005)dlt151 as follows:the act was passed to provide for the consolidation of agricultural holdings and for preventing the fragmentation of agricultural holdings in the state of punjab. it was extended to delhi. chapter iii of the act deals with consolidation of holdings and it is provided by section 14 that the government may either suo motu, or on .....

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!

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 16 1965 (SC)

Harbhajan Singh Vs. Karam Singh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1966SC641; [1966]1SCR817

..... in letter patent appeal no. 128 of 1960. 2. in the year 1955, consolidation proceedings under east punjab holdings [consolidation and prevention of fragmentation] act, 1948 [hereinafter called the act] were started in the village bholpur of district ludhiana. in accordance with the provisions of the act, a scheme for consolidation of holding was published on 29th march 1956. on 14th may 1956 that scheme was confirmed ..... under s. 20 of the act. the consolidation officer accordingly re allotted parcels of land ..... on 29th august, 1958. 3. it appears that harbhajan singh had filed two copies of the application under s. 42 of the act.and on one copy the director of consolidation of holdings passed an order on 17th february, 1958 that the application should be put up with previous papers. onthe second copy of the application ..... application of harbhajan singh and set aside the order of the assistant director. respondent no. 1 thereafter moved the punjab high court under art. 226 of the constitution for quashing the order of the director, consolidation of holding made on 29th august, 1958. the application was allowed by the high court on 11th august january, 1960 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 1994 (SC)

Swaran Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1994SC2301; JT1994(3)SC203; (1994)108PLR206; 1994(2)SCALE557; (1994)3SCC544; 1994(1)LC678(SC)

..... authority while deciding a dispute of title between the persons claiming to be the owners and the gram panchayat in respect of shamlat deh under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 ('act', for short)? according to the averments, the appellants claim to have been cultivating the land as lessees which, land has been described in the revenue records as shamlat deh ..... .p.as. filed by them were also dismissed by the high court. since a common question arises, all these appeals are being disposed of together.4. the act provides for the compulsory consolidation of agricultural holdings and preventing the fragmentation of agricultural holdings in the state of punjab and for the assignment or reservation of land for common purposes of the village. under section 14 of the ..... act, the government may of its own accord agree or on application declare its intention to make a scheme for consolidation of holdings. section 16 lays down that the scheme prepared .....

Tag this Judgment!


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