Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Page 6 of about 525 results (0.048 seconds)

Sep 03 1958 (HC)

General S. Shivdev Singh and anr. Vs. the State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1959P& H453

..... powers which it exercises under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, to the additional director consolidation with effect from a prior date, namely, 17-6-1957. 2. the facts are not in dispute. the proceedings relating to consolidation of holdings started in village amlasinghwala, district sangrur, on 25-11-1954 under the pepsu holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 2007 bk. (which will be referred to as ..... . on 12-2-1953 the following notification was issued: 'no. 283-div-5s (ch)/1167. in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 41 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, the governor of punjab is pleased to notify that with effect from 17-6-1957 the powers of the state government under section 42 of the ..... act have also been delegated to the additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, p. s. multaniunder secretary to government punjab, forests and game preservation department.' the state did not file any written statement prior to 12-2-1958 and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 1993 (HC)

Bhag Mal and ors. Vs. Raju and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1993)104PLR723

..... 30, 1975. it reads as under : -'shri raju s/o mehru resident of village khera, tehsil bhiwani khera, district bhiwani has filed this petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948. his prayer was for the adjustment of the area between the two brothers.2. the notice was served to the parties and they have appeared today with the request ..... land was allotted to lalji at the first major portion. aggrieved by this, it appears that the respondent raju filed a petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') on june 18, 1975. it further appears that he filed another petition under section 42 on august 18, 1975 notice of the petitioner dated june 18 ..... the imprimatur of even the apex court. in harbhajan singh v. karam singh, a. i. r. 1966 s. c. 641. it was held that-'there is no provision in the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act granting express power of review to the state government with regard to an order made under section 42 of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 04 1961 (SC)

State of Punjab Vs. Suraj Parkash Kapur Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1963SC507; [1962]2SCR711

..... point has absolutely no legs to stand upon. the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, was enacted, in the words of the long title annexed to the act, to provide for compulsory consolidation of agricultural holdings and for the prevention of fragmentation of agricultural holdings in the state of punjab. under s. 15 of the said act, the scheme prepared by the consolidation officer shall provide for the payment of compensation to any ..... thereon. on july 28, 1954, the state government issued a notification under s. 14 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter called the act), declaring its intention to make a scheme for the consolidation of the holdings. on april 30, 1955, a draft scheme was proposed by the consolidation officer and published indicating, inter alia, that the respondents' family would be given 84 standard kanals consisting ..... owner who is allotted a holding of less market value than .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 21 2001 (HC)

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Dalmia Industries P. Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2002IIIAD(Delhi)734; 96(2002)DLT441; 2002(62)DRJ1; 2002RLR309

..... 5060 sq. metrescomprising khasra no. 253/2 min., 563 % 564 in village abadi (firni) of bijwasan,tehsil mehrauli, new delhi. consolidation proceedings were initiated in this villagevide consolidation scheme 218 dated 2.5.1975 under east punjab holdings(consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 along with delhi landreforms act resulting in land being declared within village abadi (firni) and making itentitled to the benefit of notification dated 24.8.1963 ..... exempting it from buildingregulations contained in sections 332 to 336, 342 and 347 of delhi municipalcorporation act, 1957 (dmca). respondents 1-2 ..... of the building plans beforecommencement of construction. 7. it is not in dispute that the afore-mentioned village has been declared to be within village 'abadi' under the provisions of east punjab (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 read with delhi land reforms act. sections332 and 336 relate to building plans. sections 312 and 313, as noticed herein before,relate to public streets. the said .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 2005 (HC)

Shri NaraIn Singh Vs. the Consolidation Officer and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2006(86)DRJ617

..... that chahat means a tubewell operated by a bullock, whereas the word 'tubewell' is not defined in the east punjab holding (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 but is defined in the haryana canal and drainage act, 1974. section 2(13) of that act states that a tubewell means any device for lifting water from below the surface of the ground by mechanical means ..... the collector in an appeal filed by respondents no. 2 to 4 under section 21 (4) of the east punjab holding (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948. the petitioner's holding was in khasra no. 522 of village bamnoli, tehsil mehrauli, new delhi. consolidation proceedings were initiated and the petitioner was allotted land along with co-owners in a place different from the place ..... where the original land of the petitioner was located. the petitioner filed objections under section 21 (2) of the act ..... alleging that there was a tubewell in existence in his original holding and hence he should be allotted the land in the original holding. 4. under the consolidation scheme it was stated:- 'efforts shall be made to give the same plot to those .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 2000 (HC)

Gurjant Singh and anr. Vs. Commissioner, Ferozepore Division and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR2000P& H161; (2000)125PLR347

..... ble judge in a d.b. who decided the writ petitions giving rise to the present letters patent appeals. it is quite apparent that the provisions of east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 and the judgments that have been cited before us were not brought to the notice of the learned single judge. the judgment is appeal recorded by the ..... surplus land. it is common case of the parties that in a scheme that is framed under the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred as the act of 1948), every proprietor of the village depending upon the extent of his holding, has to contribute his land for common purposes. common landwhich is naturally meant for the common use of ..... the village is, thus, provided by none other than proprietors of the village. a pro rata cut applied to the holding ..... with the land reserved for common purposes whereas section 21 deals with repartition (sic) accordance with the scheme of consolidation of holdings. so far as section 23-a of the act of 1948 is concerned, it deals with the management and control of lands for common purposes. sections 18, 21 and 23-a read thus :--'18. lands reserved for common .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 2005 (HC)

Gram Panchayat Vs. the State of Punjab Through Additional Director Con ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2005)140PLR393

..... objection from the side of respondent nos. 2 and 3. in the year 1984 respondent nos.2 and 3 filed an application under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short 'the act') for allotment of the land in one tak, which stood bifurcated with the digging of the drain falling in their fields, by the government. the ..... advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3, that bar of limitation under rule 18 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949 (for short 'the rules') does not apply to those petitions under section 42 of the act in which the legality or validity of a scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made is challenged. in support ..... ashutosh mohunta, j.1. the gram panchayat has filed this writ petition to challenge the order dated 30.5.1985 passed by the additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, jalandhar (respondent no. 1), whereby kartar singh (respondent no. 2) has been allotted land in one tak by getting his land exchanged with the shamilat deh belonging to ..... of his contention he has placed reliance on the gram panchayat, village kanonda v . director, consolidation of holdings, haryana, chandigarh and ors., .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 2004 (HC)

Manushya Swajati Kalyan Dharam Samaj Society Vs. Gram Panchayat of Vil ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2005)139PLR378

..... of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short, 'consolidation act'), then there must have been some proof that the gram panchayat was managing the same. he further submitted that in the revenue record i.e. copy ..... to manage the suit land and to dispossess the plaintiff (appellant herein) therefrom in exercise of the powers vested in it under rule 16(ii) of the punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949 in due course of law.2. briefly stated, the facts are that the plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit claiming itself to be owner in ..... act was not maintainable and the findings recorded by the collector are void. in that situation, only the civil court was competent to decide the title of the parties. he further submitted that even if the management of the land was with the gram panchayat as per the provisions of section 16-c read with section 16(ii) of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention ..... under section 2(6) of the act.15. the learned additional district judge, gurgaon, has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondent-gram panchayat is competent to manage the suit land and to dispossess the plaintiff-appellant in exercise of the powers vested under rule 16(ii) of the punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949.in view of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 2004 (HC)

Smt. Gayatri Jain, P.C.S. Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2005)140PLR225

..... .p.c. and sections 13(1)(a)(d), 13(2) of prevention of corruption act, 1988, registered with vigilance bureau, patiala.2. in the year 1997, the petitioner was posted as additional director consolidation, punjab, empowered with powers of the state government under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the consolidation act). on 24.6.1977, when she was so posted, the ..... proprietors of village sekhon majra filed a petition under section 42 of the consolidation act against the gram panchayat for re-distribution of the ..... bachat land. their claim was that during the consolidation, the department of consolidation imposed pro rate cut on .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 09 1989 (HC)

Ram Saroop Vs. Ram Nath and anr.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 38(1989)DLT473

..... the revision petition filed before him. (2) the relevant facts set out in the pleadings are that as a result of the consolidation proceedings having taken place in village sannoth under the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), ram nath, respondent no. i, was allotted and from killas 47/12 (4 bighas ii biswas) and 47119 (2 bighas 7 biswas ..... ) situated in the revenue estate of village sannoth, delhi and that he entered into possession of such holding under section 24 of the act in the year 1976 ..... fully fortified by taking this view in the case of harbhajan singh v. karam singh and others : [1966]1scr817 where their lordships have held: 'there is no provision in the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act granting express power of review to the state government with regard to an order made under s.4l of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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