Court : Delhi
..... in the impugned order. the present appeal is, therefore, dismissed.7. before parting with the judgment, it may note here that appellants have efficacious remedy available with them under east punjab holdings (consolidation & prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, thus they cannot seek claim from the civil courts when the revenue authorities themselves are ready to hear and decide their claim of allotment of passage for ingress and egress ..... rightly so as the under the said act jurisdiction of civil courts is barred and no civil court can entertain any suit to obtain a decision in respect of any matter which the chief ..... of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948." 4. being aggrieved, the appellant preferred rca no.121/2017 before learned first appellate court, which was also dismissed the appeal observing interalia:-""6.at the very outset, a perusal of the impugned order revealed that learned trial court has dismissed the suit of the appellants (plaintiffs) being not maintainable under section 44 of east punjab holdings (consolidation & prevention of fragmentation) act 1948 and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
..... , delhi to examine the legality or propriety of an order passed, even if the consolidation scheme is confirmed. the only rider in aforesaid section 42 of east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 is that any variation of order has to ..... . respondent-jai bhagwan had filed a revision petition against order of 11th november, 2004 of consolidation officer in may, 2006. so, it cannot be said that respondent jai bhagwan had belatedly challenged petitioner s entitlement to the subject plot. otherwise also, section 42 of east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 gives unfettered right to w.p.(c) 10471/2009 page 4 of 5 financial commissioner ..... be after notice to the affected parties. in the instant case, violation of principles of natural justice is not the plea put-forth by petitioner. it is a matter of record that consolidation proceedings in the village in question are still continuing .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
..... was the khud khast in respect of the entire agricultural land owned and possessed by him; (iv) consolidation proceedings were commenced in the years 1952 and 53 in respect of both the villages under the provisions of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 and during the repartition proceedings along with other land, the land comprised in khasra nos.23/2, 8 ..... , 15/17, 2and 4 situated in village rajapur khurd was allotted in the name of sahi ram; (v) at the time of commencement of the reforms act, the said land was shown ..... period of limitation, because he may not be aware of the fact that a declaration has been issued in respect of his holding in favour of another.20. though section 185(1) of the reforms act expressly bars the jurisdiction of the courts other than the courts mentioned in the schedule to rsa no.290/2017 page 12 ..... authorities under various statutes viz. income tax, 1961, conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act, 1974, foreign exchange management act, 1999, the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993 and securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of securities interest act, 2002 can be instituted. in my prima facie view not. rsa no. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
..... said rulings is the one decided by the constitution bench of this court in roop chand v. state of punjab. in that case, it was held by the majority that where the state government had, under section 41(1) of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, delegated its appellate powers vested in it under section 21(4) to an officer , an order passed by ..... such an officer was an order passed by the state government itself and not an order passed by any officer under this act within section 42 and was not revisable by the ..... in garb of the interpretation of the statute.26. it is also of some relevance to note that no amendment has been made to section 11(2) of the act which holds that the parties are free to agree on the procedure for appointing the arbitrator or arbitrators. section 11(3) also provides that in any arbitration with three arbitrators, each ..... party shall appoint one arbitrator. therefore, in that case also, the party is appointing an arbitrator. section 11(4) of the act applies to a case of arbitration of three arbitrators. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
..... of the high court need to be noticed only in brief. consolidation proceedings under the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 [hereinafter referred to as the 1948 act ]. commenced in village karala, delhi around 1975 and concluded in 1976. after about 23 years of closure of consolidation proceedings, on 16.4.1999 the contesting respondents no.4 to ..... 7 filed an application under section 43a of the 1948 act, seeking allotment of land of khasra no.168 on the ground that during the consolidation ..... 2 scc1 learned counsel for the contesting respondents has on the other hand taken us through the scheme of consolidation as provided in the 1948 act and has highlighted that the grievance of the applicants before the consolidation officer under section 43a was within the scope of that section and no objection can be raised on account ..... of delay of 23 years because once scheme kabiz was recorded in favour of applicants, section 26 of the 1948 act required such encumbrance by way of possession to be transferred and attached to the holding .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
..... 23. in surinder kaul grewal (supra), the issue for consideration before the supreme court was, where no time limit is prescribed for application under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, whether the application filed nearly after 27 years was maintainable. in answer to the said issue, the supreme court held as under: 5. the question of limitation for ..... initiating proceedings under section 42 is covered by a decision of this court in gram panchayat, kakran v. director of consolidation where this court has held that ..... placed reliance on the judgments of the supreme court in sulochana chandrakant galande vs. pune municipal transport and others (2010) 8 scc 467), surinder kaur grewal vs. director, consolidation of holdings and others (2010) 15 scc 461)and ram karan (dead) through legal representative and others vs. state of rajasthan and others (2014) 8 scc 282). 6.6 ..... is that padianallur village in ponneri taluk, tiruvallur district, was taken over by the government under the provisions of the madras estates (abolition and conversion into ryotwari) act, 1948 (for short the act ?) in january 1951. a ryotwari settlement was introduced in 1953. during such settlement, the lands in s.no.155/2 and 156, which are the petition .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
..... that when the agreement was entered into between the respondents no.1 and 2, consolidation proceedings were in progress. he submits that section 30 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 prohibited transfer of the land which was under consolidation. consequently, the agreement itself was hit by section 30 of the said act. mr. gupta submits that it was not certain when the agreement was entered ..... a notification under section 14(1) of the said act has been issued (which sets the consolidation proceedings into motion) and during the pendency of the consolidation proceedings, no landowner or tenant having a right of occupancy upon whom the ..... disadvantageous position, as smt. anjali sehgal chose not to act on the basis of the gpa to apply for and obtain the noc and thereafter proceed to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. 17. the submission of mr. gupta premised on section 30 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 is misplaced. the said provision merely states that after .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chhattisgarh
..... 539]. in that case, it was held by the majority that where the state government had, under section 41(1) of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, delegated its appellate powers vested in it under section 21(4) to an 'officer', an order passed by such an officer was ..... an order passed by the state government itself and "not an order passed by any officer under this act" within section 42 and was not revisable ..... if the facts of present case are examined, it is quite vivid that the registrar in exercise of powers under section 66(1) of the act, 1960, instead of deciding the dispute himself, transferred the same for disposal in accordance with law by appointing the assistant registrar, co operative society ..... for the petitioners would submit that against the order of deputy registrar being nominee or delegatee of registrar under section 66(3) of the act, 1960, the appeal was not maintainable in law and as such the exercise of appellate power by the registrar was clearly unsustainable and bad ..... the petitioner under article 227 of the constitution of india merely contending that registrar having delegated its power under section 66(3) of the act, 1960, to the assistant registrar/deputy registrar, could not have heard the appeal against the order of deputy registrar as the deputy registrar .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
..... suffers from the vice of excessive delegation, being beyond the scope and sphere of east punjab holding (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 noticed that the object of the consolidation proceedings is to ensure better cultivation by consolidating the fragmentations and in this context observed that the object and purpose of section 33 is not to prevent transfer of interest by a bhumidhar but to ensure that the bhumidhar must retain ..... eight standard acres of land as the said area is regarded as an economic holding. it ..... not prevail over the hindu succession act. however the same is of no relevance to the present context.7. another division bench of this court in subhash chand aggarwal vs. union of india manu/de/2744/2011, while dealing with a challenge to the vires of rule 6 (j) (v) of delhi holding (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1959 prohibiting an allottee of industrial .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
..... setting aside the impugned order dated 17.08.2007 passed by the financial commissioner in revision petition no.67/02-ca, under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred as the act ), titled as ram chander & anr. vs. dharam singh & ors. , whereby gaon sabha (village khera khurd) lands meant for common purpose chargah maveshian (pasture) bearing ..... however, submitted that if suo moto proceedings are initiated under section 42 of the act by the financial commissioner, eventually, notification under section 36 of the act is not required.17. to strengthen his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon johri mal vs. the director of consolidation of holdings, punjab and anr. air1967sc1568 wherein the apex court held as under: on behalf of the ..... 8 in lieu of residential plot bearing khasra nos.460/2 (0-7) and 460/1 (0-7). the proposal report dated 25.08.2000 is contrary to the consolidation act, rules and scheme as no agricultural land in lieu of lal dora (extended) can be allotted to any right holder in any manner whatsoever that too in the absence ..... village khera khurd). thus, conversion of community land into the individual use is contrary to the interest of village community at large and the same is against the consolidation act, rules and scheme. accordingly, total land measuring13-05 biswas in lieu of 0-14 biswas smells extraneous reasons and considerations. thus, the said allotment is in violation of .....Tag this Judgment!