Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Page 8 of about 525 results (0.064 seconds)

Apr 16 1979 (HC)

Sukhdarshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1980P& H94

..... that the provisions of sub-secs. (3) and (4) of s. 32-d are analogous to the provisions of ss. 21(4) and 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention at fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter. referred to as the consolidation act), and, therefore, the judgment of the supreme court in harbhajan singh v. karam singh, air 1966 sc 641, was brought in aid that there is no power ..... place reliance on the decision in roop chand's case (supra), where the supreme court held as follows:--'where the state government has, under s. 41(1) of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, delegated its power gives under s. 21(4) to hear appeals to an officer, an order passed by such officer is an order passed by. the state government ..... itself and not an `order passed by any officer under this act' within the meaning. of s. 42. the order contemplated by s. 42 is an order passed by an officer ..... that order of the commissioner, the petitioner filed a revision before the financial commissioner punjab under section 32d(4) of the act. the financial commissioner vide order dated jan. 5, 1978, annexure p-3, dismissed the revision holding that no revision was competent under s. 32-d(4) of the act, following the decisions referred to above.5. as already stated, the only .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 2002 (HC)

Madan Lal Vs. Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2003)133PLR399

..... face of the record being contrary to section 26 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). in view of this, the petitioner had filed petition no. 148 of 1986 under section 42 of the act before the additional director, consolidation, punjab, for correction of the mistake and for showing the pre-consolidation entries of parat sarkar record regarding mortgage etc. in the ..... that the petitioner seeks to assail by way of this writ petition on the ground that the bar envisaged in relation to section 42 of the act is contained in rule 18 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949 and it would not apply to petitions where the legality or validity of the scheme prepared or confirmed or re-partition made, is ..... new record prepared during the consolidation and after examining the record, the additional .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 2003 (HC)

Prem Chand (Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs Vs. Additional Director ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2003)135PLR844

..... (respondent no. 1 herein), vide which an application filed by harbans singh (respondent no. 2 herein) under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to an 'the act') for correction of the mistake during the consolidation proceedings were allowed.2. in this case, the dispute is about khasra no. 98/15/1 total measuring one kanal, situated in village rahaun, tehsil ..... a scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made in the consolidation is challenged. rule 18 provided limitation only for petitions filed against orders passed under the act. this decision of the full bench of this court ..... the full bench decision of this court in sh. jagtra singh v. additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab and anr., (1984)86 p.l.r. 364 (f.b.), wherein it was held that bar of limitation of six months as provided for in rule 18 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation), rules, 1949 does not apply to those petitions in which legality or validity of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 2004 (HC)

Dalbara Singh and anr. Vs. the Additional Director, Consolidation of H ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2004)137PLR603a

..... order dated 24.5.1984, annexure p1 passed by the additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab in petition no. 109 of 1983 filed by respondent no. 2-raunqi ram under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short, 'the act').2. brief facts are that consolidation proceedings in village rampur, tehsil phillaur, district jullundur took place in ..... the year 1952-53. scheme under' section 20 of the act was formulated and in accordance therewith, repartition was finalised in the ..... s.c. 430 and it has been held that even though the limitation prescribed in rule 18 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949 is not applicable to an application filed under section 42 of the act, the competent authority cannot entertain an application/petition filed under that section after long lapse of time. the ..... holdings, punjab on the following grounds:-(a) firstly, that the consolidation in the village took place in the year 1952-53, and it is after a lapse of 30 years that petition under section 42 of the act had been filed by respondent no. 2. the said petition was, therefore, barred by limitation;(b) secondly, raunki .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 2004 (HC)

Bachittar Singh and ors. Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Hol ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2004)137PLR673

..... 3 to 5 of the petitioner are denied as wrong. the petitioners were impleaded as parties to the petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') and were duly served and mukhtiar singh petitioner was present at the time of hearing and was heard by the additional director before the passing ..... . this is a petition for quashing order dated 16.12.1983 (annexure p-2) vide which additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab allowed the petition filed by respondent no. 2 under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short 'the act').2. the main ground on which the petitioners have challenged the impugned order is that they were not served with ..... quashed only on that ground.for the reason mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed and order annexure p2is quashed with the direction to additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab to decide the application of respondent no. 2 afresh. the parties are directed to appear before the additional director concerned on 16.2.2004. ..... --s/o sobha singh 0-418x22. jumia mushtarka nil shown as areamalkan withdrawn at sr.no. 1file be consigned to the record room. announced.'sd/-addl. director,consolidation of holdings, pb. chandigarh.'7. in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, it has been averred that the petitioners were duly served and one mukhtiar .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 20 2004 (HC)

Ajit Singh and ors. Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2004)138PLR360

..... byajit singh, gurdial singh and daljit singh etc. passed by the additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, respondent no. 1 under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act), 1948 (for short 'the act').2. brief facts are that in accordance with the scheme prepared under section 20 of the act, repartition of the village kotkapur was carried out in the year 1964-65. ..... the proposition of law settled by this court and the supreme court in the gram panchayat village kanonda v. director consolidation of holdings and ors., 1990 p.l.j. 213 that under rule 18 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949,bar of limitation of six months is applicable only to orders and it does not apply to ..... know of order, annexure p-2, the petitioners preferred a petition for setting aside the said order. the petition was however, dismissed by the ad ditional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab vide order dated 11.10.1984, an nexure p-3. this is how, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the orders annexures p-2 ..... points c to d the petitioner no. 9 whose land falls between points d and e were also impleaded as respondents in the revision petition. the additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, however, notwith standing the fact the petitioners were not impleaded as respondents nor were heard, ac cepted the revision petition preferred by respondent no. 2, vide .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 14 2003 (HC)

Pannu Ram and anr. Vs. the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdi ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2003)134PLR688

..... orders dated 12.01.1984 (annexure p-5) and 28.08.1987 (annexure p-7) passed by additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab (respondent no. 1 herein), vide which an application tiled under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') by respondent no. 4 was allowed and the review application for reviewing the order dated 12.01.1984 was ..... dismissed, respectively.2. in the instant case, the dispute is with regard to providing the passage to the hilly 'chak' of the petitioners by the consolidations authorities. in the year ..... order dated 12.1.1984, the same order should not have been interfered by the additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, after the expiry of period of limitation i.e. six months from the date of order, as provided under rule 18 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules'). in support of his contention, learned counsel for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 07 1993 (HC)

Lt. Col Raghbir Singh (Retd.) and ors. Vs. Kulbir Singh Brar and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1993)104PLR356

..... 10 k. 9 m. came to the share of the respondents. respondents, on 30.4.1981, made an application under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the act) to the additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab. this was followed by second application dated 8.9.1981 in these applications, a grievance was made by the respondents that major portion of ..... the petitioners shows that what was sold was not a specific or particular piece of land but was a share in the entire holding. petitioners were entitled to land on the road according to their share but on consolidation, they got the entire land allotted to them on the road side whereas land allotted to the respondent was on the back ..... according to the scheme. on return from the army, he moved an application for restoration of the possession. the additional director, consolidation, after hearing both the parties, condoned the delay in filing application under section 42 of the act and necessary relief as prayed for was given. the respondents were given 25 karams from kotkapura on the northern side and the ..... any of the authorities passed under the act. the word 'order' as used in rule 18 was interpreted and it was held that the preparation or confirmation of a scheme and the repartition carried out would not fall within the scope of the word 'order.' the supreme court in gram panchayat v. director, consolidation of holdings, 1989 (4) j.t. 357. approved .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 2005 (HC)

Manohar Singh and anr. Vs. Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner) and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2006)142PLR186

..... what manner the said order is helpful to the case of the petitioners. the detail of the land affected pursuant to the proceedings held under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, does not include the land under challenge as no document to support his contention has been produced despite opportunity granted and availed by way of written requests by way ..... the hadbast of village chhanga rai hithar, tehsil and district ferozepur. a reference had been made to an order dated october 21, 1986, passed by the learned additional director, consolidation of holdings, jalandhar, punjab upon a petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, that the land measuring 776 (kanals allegedly including the land in dispute, did not fall under the definition of ..... punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1961, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to hold this land.5. admittedly, the petitioners had not filed any application under section 11 of the punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 2005 (HC)

Balbir Singh and ors. Vs. Financial Commissioner of Delhi and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 122(2005)DLT660; 2005(82)DRJ553

..... well reasoned judgment of the learned single judge in wp(c) no. 41/1987 dated 10.9.2004.2. the financial commissioner, exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the act), after carefully examining the record and the material placed before him made an order on 11.11.1986. it is clear that the ..... consolidation officer on remand withdrew the land from kila no. 257 from the khata of gaon sabha, which was part and parcel of village pond and allotted the said land to ..... 257 should be vested in the gaon sabha and not to put for allotment. i agree with their version and the revision stands accepted. case is remanded to the learned consolidation officer with the directions that first he should ascertain from the records whether actually there is excess allotment or not. construction raised on a piece of land by shri ajit ..... gaon sabha. after examining the matter in detail and considering the fact that the allotment was from the village pond land, the financial commissioner interfered with the order of the consolidation officer. at pages 140 and 141 of the paper book his findings are recorded as under:-'i come to the conclusion that it would be imperative on my part to .....

Tag this Judgment!


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