Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Page 9 of about 525 results (0.067 seconds)

Feb 19 2004 (HC)

Jit Singh and ors. Vs. Joint Development Commissioner and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2004)137PLR438

..... deh hasab rasad rakba malkiat in possession of the proprietors of the village. petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 1948') was filed by some of the respondents before the additional director, consolidation seeking partition of the land alleging the same to be the land belonging to the right holders and not ..... of hon'ble supreme court in gram panchayat nurpur v. state of punjab, (1997-2)116 p.l.r. 694 (s.c.), gram panchayat village sidh v. additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, 1997(3) r.c.r. (civil) 491, to contend that the authorities constituted under the act of 1948 had no jurisdiction to determine the question of title or in other ..... words, as to whether the land belonged to the gram panchayat under the provisions of the act of 1961 or the proprietors of the ..... cases (supra), learned single judge had set aside the orders passed by the authorities constituted under the act of 1948, even though there was an earlier litigation between the parties upto hon'ble supreme court up-holding the orders passed by the director consolidation, a division bench of this court in letters patent appeal bearing no. 1059 of 1999 wherein, one .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 10 1965 (HC)

Ram Sarup Daya Sukh Vs. the State and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1965P& H454; 1965CriLJ669

..... against the petitioner and that the requisite procedure was followed by him in convicting the petitioner as he did.(4) a settlement officer appointed under the provisions of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, cannot be called a civil, criminal or revenue court for obvious reasons because the functions discharged by him do not fall within the ambit of the civil, criminal revenue ..... not lie to his court. the petitioner in his present petition has alleged that shri b. d. dhawan, while acting as settlement officer under the provisions of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, was neither civil nor criminal or revenue court and as such was not competent to exercise the powers vested in such court under s. 480 of the code of criminal ..... procedure. in the circumstances he was not competent to punish him under s. 228 of the indian penal code while acting under s. 480 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 1993 (HC)

Tellu Vs. the State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1993)105PLR41

..... (here-in-after referred to as the act of 1948) in accordance with the scheme. the ..... possession were exchanged in the same year and thus the repartition became final. records of rights were prepared under section 22 of the act. it is pleaded that there ..... consolidation of holdings as also consolidation officer, dated november 28,1985 and may 15, 1986 respectively.2. the facts of the case reveal that the proceedings of consolidation of holdings were carried out and completed in village ramgarh chanan in the year 1952-53. the consolidation officer carried out repartition proceedings under section 21(1) of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 ..... . respondents no. 3 and 4 however, years and years thereafter in the year 1985 filed an application under section 42 of the act of 1948 before the director, consolidation of holdings. it is specifically pleaded in para 6 of the petition that in the application aforesaid the director did not issue any notice to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 1994 (HC)

Ram Kishan Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1995)109PLR414

..... village mohabbatpur, tehsil & district hissar. vide notification dated september 15, 1952, the village aforesaid was brought under consolidation as per the provisions of east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter to be mentioned as the 1948 act) and a scheme under the act was prepared in which, inter-alia, it was provided that joint khatas would be partitioned between the parties and ..... no partition of the joint khata. this led to the filing of representations and counter-representations by the co-owners and ultimately the director. consolidation exercising powers under section 42 of the 1948 act directed that joint khewat could not be partitioned without the consent of all share-holders. aggrieved, some of the co-owners filed civil writ ..... by the partition of a joint khata. the very idea of the consolidation act is that a landowner has small bits of land scattered all over the village, in lieu of all those scattered pieces he should be allotted after consolidation one plot so that the holding may be economical and easily manageable. at the same time the ..... an application for partition under the punjab land revenue act which remained pending for four years and when the mode of partition was settled and lots were also prepared, final partition was stayed because by notification dated september 15, 1952, the said village was brought under consolidation under 1948 act. a scheme was prepared under the act wherein it was provided that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 1996 (HC)

Harjit Singh and ors. Vs. State Through Additional Director Consolidat ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1997)115PLR542

..... a right of passage to his land across the land of the petitioners and respondents no.3 to 5.6. on a close reading of section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948,i am of the opinion that the application under said section is not maintainable for providing a fresh passage or path to the land of the second respondent. once ..... the consolidation scheme has been framed and implemented, any change in the same cannot be made under section 42 of the act except for the matters specifically provided therein. in harbhajan singh ..... t.h.b. chalapathi, j.1. this writ petition is filed to quash the order of the additional director, consolidation, punjab, mohali dated 15.11.1994 vide annexure p-3.2. respondents 2 to 5 filed an application under section 42 of the consolidation act, 1948 for providing a passage to their land in killa nos. 24/11 and 10 through killa no. 24/112/1 ..... . on that application, the additional director of consolidation by the impugned order directed a path to be provided on the southern side of killa no .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 2004 (HC)

Sh. Hukum Chand and ors. Vs. the Financial Commissioner and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 111(2004)DLT21; 2004(74)DRJ509

..... .2002, passed by the financial commissioner, respondent no.1 in revision and orders of the consolidation officer dated 21.5.2002 passed under section 43-a of east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the act) and 28.9.1984 passed by consolidation officer of amended allotments in consolidation proceedings.3. the facts giving rise to the present petition insofar as they are relevant for ..... its disposal may be noticed:(i) petitioners and respondent nos.4 to 7 are residents of village khaira, delhi. they claim that they hold agricultural ..... . mr.v.p.singh's contention is that the no notice of the proceedings was served on the petitioners. the procedure, as prescribed under rule 3 of the delhi holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1959 was not followed. the rules contemplate and provide for personal service. in this case, it is urged by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, leave aside .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 05 1964 (HC)

The State of Punjab and ors. Vs. Banta Singh Arjan and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1966P& H32

..... objection which was raised was that the scheme contravened section 15 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, by not providing for compensation to any owner who was allotted a holding of a lesser value than that of his original holding. the learned judge declined to go into the merits of this objection because ..... lorry stand. the learned judge held that no land could have been reserved for these purposes under the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act and that land could be acquired only under the land acquisition act. as regards 131 kanals and 1 marla which had been reserved for government school for boys and girls ..... judge was that land had been allotted to the panchayat in excess of the area vested in it prior to the consolidation proceedings. following the decision in munsha singh v. state of punjab, 62 pun lr 1: (air 1960 punj 317) (fb), the learned judge held that the allotment of ..... 10 of the letters patent.4. there can be no manner of doubt that in view of our decision in jit singh v. state of punjab (letters patent appeal no. 131 of 1960): (air 1964 punj 419 fb), the only reservation which could not have been validly and properly ..... land to the panchayat in excess of its previous holding would invalidate the scheme to that extent.3. the last ground urged was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2004 (HC)

Ganda Singh Vs. Director of Consolidation and Holdings and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2004)137PLR509

..... consolidation no passage had been provided to him for access to his land.2. the competent authority examined ..... one hand, and to respondent no. 2 hardial singh on the other. eighteen years after consolidation of lands in village rupowali chagwan, respondent no. 2 hardial singh filed an application under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 1948 act), seeking a passage to his land by alleging that during the process of ..... is submitted that respondent no. 1 could not have entertained the claim of respondent no. 2 hardial singh under section 42 of the 1948 act after a passage of eighteen years from the consolidation proceedings. in order to support the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment rendered by the apex court ..... made under section 42 of the 1948 act, after an unreasonable long time, despite the fact that there was no prescribed period of limitation should not have been entertained. reliance has also been placed on the decision rendered by this court in gram panchayat of village mahadian v. the additional director, consolidation punjab and ors., (1999-3)123 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 21 2005 (HC)

Pandit Chuni Lal and ors. Vs. the Financial Commissioner Revenue and S ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2006)142PLR309

..... anr. 1997(2) p.l.j. 375. in that case, while interpreting implication of words 'at any time', as used in section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 enabling the state government to entertain revision, their lordships of the supreme court had held as under:-even where no period of limitation is prescribed, the party aggrieved is ..... required to move the appropriate authority for relief within a reasonable time. in fact this court in the case of gram panchayat, village kanonda v. director, consolidation of holdings : [1989]177itr193 ..... smt. bal-want kaur wife of sardar charanjit singh mann v. chief settlement commissioner (lands), jullundur a.i.r. 1964 punj. 33. the full bench, after holding that under section 24 of the act, revision can be entertained at any time, further observed that the 'chief settlement commissioner, suo-moto can interfere with the orders of his subordinate and no limitation ..... before the settlement commissioner by the respondents nos. 3 to 5. all the four ingredients of section 41 of transfer of property act are found in this case.21. similarly, in achhar singh and ors. v. the state of punjab and ors. 1979 p.l.j. 278, it has been held that once land was allotted to the original allottee and .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 05 1998 (HC)

Ujagar Singh and anr. Vs. Addl. Director, Consolidation of Holdings an ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1998)119PLR841

..... dated 14.10.1980 passed by the additional director consolidation of holdings, punjab, exercising the powers of director under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (herein after referred to as 1948 act).2. petitioners have averred that ujagar singh, petitioner filed petition under section 42 of the 1948 act against order dated 17.8.1974 of the consolidation officer. director consolidation instead of entertaining the petition directed ujagar singh ..... the petition under section 42 of the act and resultantly, set aside the order of the consolidation officer. hence, the present writ petition.3. upon notice, two sets of written statement have been ..... afresh. petitioners have further averred that before the consolidation officer, through the intervention of village panchayat, the matter was compromised and order dated 20.9.1979 was passed on the basis of the compromise. petitioners have contended that respondent no. 3 kanshi, filed petition under section 42 of the 1948 act before the additional director, consolidation, who vide order dated 14.10.1980 accepted .....

Tag this Judgment!


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