Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Year: 1965 Page 1 of about 7 results (0.041 seconds)

Sep 16 1965 (SC)

Harbhajan Singh Vs. Karam Singh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-16-1965

Reported in : AIR1966SC641; [1966]1SCR817

..... in letter patent appeal no. 128 of 1960. 2. in the year 1955, consolidation proceedings under east punjab holdings [consolidation and prevention of fragmentation] act, 1948 [hereinafter called the act] were started in the village bholpur of district ludhiana. in accordance with the provisions of the act, a scheme for consolidation of holding was published on 29th march 1956. on 14th may 1956 that scheme was confirmed ..... under s. 20 of the act. the consolidation officer accordingly re allotted parcels of land ..... on 29th august, 1958. 3. it appears that harbhajan singh had filed two copies of the application under s. 42 of the act.and on one copy the director of consolidation of holdings passed an order on 17th february, 1958 that the application should be put up with previous papers. onthe second copy of the application ..... application of harbhajan singh and set aside the order of the assistant director. respondent no. 1 thereafter moved the punjab high court under art. 226 of the constitution for quashing the order of the director, consolidation of holding made on 29th august, 1958. the application was allowed by the high court on 11th august january, 1960 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 15 1965 (HC)

Chahat Khan Bahadur Khan and ors. Vs. the State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-15-1965

Reported in : AIR1966P& H111

..... petitioners belonging to village gulalta in tehsil ferozepore jhirka of gurgaon district. consolidation of holdings began in that village with the publication of a notification for that purpose under section 14 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (east. punjab act 50 of 1948), hereinafter to be referred as 'the act', sometime in 1956. on appointment of the consolidation officer under that very section, after advice of the land-owners of ..... the estate, he prepared on may 4, 1957, a scheme for consolidation of holdings in that estate. after some objections to the scheme ..... the 30th of july 1960 and ordered the scheme of village gulalta to be amended under section 36 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the act) to provide separate tak for chahi area. the petitioners claim that they were never heard before the said order was passed. it is also stated that the above order was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 10 1965 (HC)

Ram Sarup Daya Sukh Vs. the State and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-10-1965

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!

Feb 11 1965 (HC)

Madan Lal Vs. Sohan Lal and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-11-1965

Reported in : AIR1965P& H372

..... court also relied on kundan v. sardara ramjilal 1956-61 pun lr 208: (air 1959 punj 206) for the proportion that section 44 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 did not bar the jurisdiction of the civil court so are as questions three issues on merits including the issue as to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to possession ..... as non-occupancy tenants thereof. ganga charan etc., who were also proprietors in this village took up the matter before the state government under section 42 of the east punjab holding (consolidation and presentation of fragmentation) act, 1948 and the additional director as the delegated of the state government decided that the land allotted to ganga charan etc should go to the petitioner. the result of ..... of the suit-land and the issue as to what is the effect of the suit-land before the consolidation authorities and the rejection of the same. the defendant-landlord ..... if so, how much. this is a matter which can be tried only by a civil court there being no provisions either in the land revenue act, punjab tenancy act or section 44 of the consolidation act prohibiting the jurisdiction of the civil court in this matter. the decision of the court below though slightly on a different ground must be upheld.(4) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 04 1965 (SC)

Bhagwan Das Vs. the State of Punjab

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-04-1965

Reported in : AIR1966SC1869; (1966)68PLR300; [1966]2SCR512

..... 5, 1949 he was allotted 42 standard acres and 11 units of land in the village jamalpur, tehsil hansi, district hissar. subsequently proceedings for consolidation of holding were taken under the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (act 50 of 1948). after those proceedings were finalised the appellant was granted an equivalent area of land in the same village as described in a sanad granted by ..... be ignored. on august 22, 1961, the punjab high court allowed a petition preferred by respondent no. 4 under art. 227 of ..... 40 l. l t.28 and har chand singh v. the punjab state (1961) 40 l.l 9 the financial commissioner held that the status of the appellant must be determined on the date of the commencement of the act and subsequent accretions to his holding arising out of consolidation of holdings and improvements due to good husbandry or advent of irrigation should ..... land or re-allotment of land on compulsory consolidation of holdings. 4. in an unreported decision in surja v. financial commissioner of punjab and others civil writ no. 486 or 1961.), the punjab high court held that the status of the landowner for the purposes of an application under s. 14a of the act should be determined by evaluating his land on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 1965 (HC)

Gondhara Transport Co. (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-24-1965

Reported in : AIR1966P& H354; (1968)ILLJ456P& H

..... used in section 36 of the consolidation act calls for some limitation in point of time and does not mean that the settlement officer can revoke or vary the scheme even after the purpose of consolidating the holdings is finally accomplished under the act. at a subsequent stage some ..... in section 10(1) of the act also cease to operate. in a full bench judgment of this court in bhikan v. punjab 'state, 1963-65 pun lr 368: (air 1963 punj 255) (fb), tek chand j. while dealing with the phrase 'at any time' occurring in section 36 of the east punjab (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act (50 of 1948) held that the said expression as ..... executive or administrative decisions on the other, i am not able to find better language than that used by i. d. dua j. in deep chand v. additional director consolidation of holdings, punjab, 1964-66 pun lr 318: (air 1964 punj 249) (fb) while adverting to the necessity of attaching finality to orders given by tribunals in exercise of quasi-judicial functions ..... doubt was expressed about the scope of the said phrase 'at any time' by another bench of this court. the matter was consequently referred by shamsher bahadur j. in c. w. 579 of 1962 (chahat khan v. state of punjab), (air 1966 punj 111) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1965 (HC)

Mahla Singh Anokh Singh Vs. the State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-11-1965

Reported in : AIR1967P& H446

..... the supreme court invalidated a large number of orders passed under section 42 of the act. the legislature, therefore, with the object of validating those orders passed the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) second amendment and validation act, 1962 (punjab act no. 25 of 1962) bringing about the necessary amendments in the consolidation act. the amendment which concerns us modified section 21(4) by varying sub-section (4) and ..... before or after the commencement of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) second amendment and validation act 1962, may, within sixty days of that order, appeal to the assistant director of consolidation.(5) any appeal against an order of the settlement officer (consolidation) pending under sub-section (4) immediately before the commencement of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) second amendment and validation act 1962, either before the state government ..... in his village chak attari saddar wala, tehsil muktsar, district ferozepur, filed objections under section 21(2) of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act with the consolidation officer but the same were dismissed on 15-2-1961. he appealed from this order to the settlement officer who gave him partial relief by making some slight changes in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 24 1965 (HC)

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

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-24-1965

Reported in : AIR1967P& H198; 1967CriLJ254

..... kamrup, air 1962 sc 137 (assam act); raghubir singh v. the state of ajmer, air 1959 sc 475 (rajasthan act); state of bihar v. umesh jha, air 1962 sc 50 (bihar act); and ranjit singh v. state of punjab, air 1965 sc 632 (east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act; punjab gram panchayat act and punjab village common lands (regulation) act). therefore, the contention of the learned ..... counsel, that the provisions of section 32-ff are violative of articles 14, 19 and 31, cannot bear scrutiny and must be repelled.11. the second contention of the learned counsel relating to the vires of the act ..... the 4th march, 1955 and was published in the patiala and east punjab states union gazette (extraordinary) of that very date. certain provisions came into force on the 6th march, 1955 and others later on.the act was enacted, as the preamble denotes, to amend and consolidate the law relating to the tenancies of agricultural lands and to ..... concerned an opportunity of being heard.it may be mentioned that sections 32-bb and 32-ff were inserted by the pepsu tenancy and agricultural lands (amendment) act, 1959 (punjab act no. 3 of 1959). the effect of this amendment was that transactions made between21st august, 1956 and 30th october, 1956 were not to affect the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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