Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Year: 1964 Page 1 of about 5 results (0.152 seconds)

Aug 20 1964 (SC)

Ranjit Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-20-1964

Reported in : AIR1965SC632; (1965)0PLR563; [1965]1SCR82

..... mehnd of tehsil hansi in district hissar. proceedings for the consolidation of holdings are going on in these villages under the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act 1948 (act 50 of 1948). this act was amended on many occasions but we are concerned with it as amended by the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) (2nd amendment & validation) act (27 of 1960). in the present consolidation proceedings portions of lands from those commonly owned by the ..... have relevance and mention some of the cases decided under them one of which led to the second amendment act. 2. the consolidation act (50 of 1948) was passed to provide for the compulsory consolidation of agricultural holdings and for preventing the fragmentation of agricultural holdings. section 18 of the act provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, it shall be lawful for ..... any consolidation officer to direct inter alia : '(a) that any land specifically assigned for any common purpose shall cease to be .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 05 1964 (HC)

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

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-05-1964

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!

Aug 03 1964 (HC)

Ran Singh and ors. Vs. the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdi ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-03-1964

Reported in : AIR1965P& H145

..... 1963, reviewing the order of his predecessor passed on 5th october, 1962. (2) an order was passed by the consolidation officer on 17th of september, 1960, on an application made before him under sub-section (2) of s. 21 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, in which the right of possession of behari lal batra, the second respondent, was found to be ' undisputed ..... additional director on 5th october 1962, would not have been reviewed by his successor-in-office under section 42 of the act. reliance is placed on a recent full bench decision of this court in deep chand v. addl. director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, ilr 1964 (1) punj 665: (air 1964 punj 249) (fb) in which it was held that a judicial or quasi ..... willingly which is accepted......announced.' subsequently, another petition was moved by behari lal batra,the second respondent,under section 42 of the act,the previous khasra no. 235 had not been shown as his property in the revenue record during consolidation operations. the parties were heard by the additional director on 6th of june,1962. orders were, however, pronounced on 5th of ..... was filed by him (behari lal) when he was no longer a right-holder in this village. he,therefore,in my opinion had no locus standi to file this petition.' holding, therefore, that the petitioner had no locus standi the revision petition was dismissed. (3)the additional director was moved once again to review the order which had been passed on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 1964 (SC)

P. Vajravelu Mudaliar Vs. Special Deputy Collector, Madras and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-05-1964

Reported in : AIR1965SC1017; [1965]1SCR614

..... a against an attack on the ground that the said act infringed the fundamental rights under arts. 13, 14, 19 ..... this court in ranjit singh v. the state of punjab : [1965]1scr82 considered the scope of the said decision. the question that arose in that case was whether the east punjab holdings (conservation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (act 50 of 1948), as amended by the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) (2nd amendment and validation) act, 1960 (act 27 of 1960), was protected by art. 31- ..... it results in the inadequacy of the compensation, but that in itself does not constitute fraud on power, as we have explained earlier. we, therefore, hold that the amending act does not offend art. 31(2) of the constitution. 34. mr. viswanatha sastri then contended that though the lands were being acquired for the ostensible ..... purpose of slum clearance which became an urgent problem for the city of madras, we cannot hold that such a slum clearance relates to an agrarian reform in its limited or wider sense. that apart the amending act in its comprehensive phraseology takes in acquisition for any housing scheme, whether for slum clearance or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 1964 (HC)

Laljimal Premsukhdas and anr. Vs. B.K. Kombrabail, Div. Superintendent ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Oct-01-1964

Reported in : (1965)6GLR282

..... an appeal was decided by a delegate of a state government. the appeal was under section 21 sub-section (4) of east panjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act (punj. 50 of 1948) the delegation was under section 41 sub-section (1) of that act. the question for consideration before their lordships was whether the decision of the appeal by the delegate of the state government was ..... the privy council must be deemed to have been accepted and approved by the supreme court in the case of director of rationing and distribution. after so holding their lordships in the state of punjabs case quoted the passage from the privy council case in which the test of complete frustration was enunciated.after so quoting the passage their lordships observed as ..... to be interpreted occurs.but, mr. nanavati's contention is that all these latter principles for ascertaining the implied intention of the legislature were thrown overboard in the state of punjabs case and that their lordships have ultimately reverted to the test of complete frustration which was enunciated by their lordships of the privy council in the province of bombays case ..... was a part and parcel of the post-constitution law of this country. the decisions in the state of bihar v. rani sonabati kumari : [1961]1scr728 and the state of punjab v. the okara grain buyers syndicate ltd. okara and another : [1964]5scr387 were also based on the recognition of the same principle.21. therefore the main question for enquiry in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 26 1964 (HC)

The Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-26-1964

Reported in : (1965)67PLR144

..... 1963 sc 1503. the matter dealt with in that case was the delegation of the powers of the government both under s. 21(4) and s. 42 of the east punjab holdings(consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act and the question was whether when an officer delegated with the powers of the government under s. 21(4) has passed an order any further order dealing with the ..... annexure 2 dated the 19th of august 1963 was sent by the excise and taxation commissioner to the company. it reads:the notice issued under section 21(b) of the punjab excise act, 1914,(i of 1914), and condition no. 9 of the licence in form d-2 held by you and served on you for closure of the karnal distillery on ..... , copy annexure 4 on the 4th of may 1960 to the company when reads--'it has been decided by government that he notice issued under section 21(b) of the punjab excise act(i of 1914) and condition no. 9 of the distillery licence in form d-2 held by the karnal and served on the managing director for closure of the ..... the effect that in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 9 of the punjab excise act(ii of 1914) and excise commissioner who will be designated as excise and taxation commissioner, punjab has been appointed and invested with all the powers conferred on the financial commissioner by the said act. the argument is that once the excise and taxation commissioner has been invested .....

Tag this Judgment!


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