Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Year: 1966 Page 1 of about 6 results (0.049 seconds)

Mar 08 1966 (HC)

Mahant Som Dass Vs. the State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-08-1966

Reported in : AIR1967P& H186

..... brother r.s. narula, j. dated 22-10-1965.2. according to the petitioner, the notification issued by the government under section 14(1) of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter called the act) is intended to consolidate holdings in the estate of kheri naga along with some other estates. in the estate of kheri naga, the whole of the land belongs to thakurdwara of ..... is obvious that this provision of law only contemplates a notification with the object of consolidating holdings and for no other purpose. it is true that in the preamble of the act, in addition to the legislative intendment to provide for the compulsory consolidation of agricultural holdings and for preventing fragmentation of agricultural holdings, in 1960, the purpose was extended to the assignment or reservation of land for ..... common purposes of the village, but the language of section 14(1) of the act is quite clearly confined only to the object of consolidating the holdings. while preparing a scheme for the consolidation of holdings, the act, of course, authorises reservation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 1966 (SC)

Ajit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-02-1966

Reported in : AIR1967SC856; (1967)69PLR271; [1967]2SCR143

..... act, which provided for a declaration of the intention of the state government to make a scheme for the con- solidation ..... filed by the appellant under art. 226 of the constitution, praying that the scheme of consolidation of village ropalon, tahsil samrola, district ludhiana, be quashed. the scheme which was sought to be quashed was made under the provisions of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the act. on may 2, 1961, a notification ",as issued under s. 14(1) of the ..... on two grounds which alone were pressed before us in this appeal. the first was that the consolidation officer (gurkirpal singh) was not appointed under the fast punjab holdings ( consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, till after the repartition was concluded. the consolidation work done by him was, accordingly said to be without jurisdiction and a nullity. the second ground was that there were 89 bighas, 18 biswas .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 1966 (HC)

Bansi and anr. Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings and ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-03-1966

Reported in : AIR1967P& H28

..... to the petition) allowing the appeal of respondents nos. 3 to 7 in a consolidation matter and further the order of the additional director, consolidation of holdings, rohtak rejecting the petitioners' application under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (act no. 50 of 1948) against the order of the assistant director, consolidation of holdings. a similar application (civil writ no. 2946 of 1965) was filed by the ..... of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants before us.'we must now proceed to state our conclusion on the preliminary objection raised by the respondents. we hold that if a writ petition filed by a party under article 226 is considered on the merits as a contested matter and is dismissed, the decision thus pronounced would continue ..... the absence of a speaking order it would not be easy to decide what factors weighed in the mind of the court and that makes it difficult and unsafe to hold that such a summary dismissal is a dismissal on merits and as such contitutes a bar of res judicata against a similar petition filed under article 32. if the petition ..... the judgment of the supreme court in daryao's case, air 1961 sc 1457 (supra) learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon certain observations in piara singh v. punjab state, 1962 pun lr 547: (air 1962 punj 498). this was a letters patent appeal against the order of a single judge whereby the writ petition of piara singh under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 1966 (SC)

Bhagat Ram and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-02-1966

Reported in : AIR1967SC927; (1967)69PLR287; [1967]2SCR165

orderthe scheme made in respect of the consolidation of village dolike sunderpur is hit by the second proviso to art. 31a of the constitution in so far as it reserves 100 kanals 2 marlas for the income of the panchayat. the state is directed to modify the scheme to bring it into accord with the second proviso as interpreted in the majority judgment : [1967]2scr143 in civil appeal no. 1018 of 1966 and to proceed according to law. there would be no order as to costs.

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 1966 (HC)

Nar Singh Mansoor Singh and ors. Vs. State and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-17-1966

Reported in : AIR1967P& H111

..... and i am of the view that it should be decided by a larger bench.2. the villages of mehtabgarh, aujan and ratt khera have been the subject-matter of consolidation. the consolidation operations in village mehtabgarh were concluded in 1950 and those in aujan in 1961, while they are still in progress in village ratta khera. these three villages are situated ..... it may be argued that the enforcement of a scheme might fall under an 'order... or repartition made'. as i have said before, the matter is of sufficient importance in consolidation proceedings and it would be in the fitness of things if it is decided by a larger bench.4. i would, therefore, submit these papers to the hon'ble the ..... apart from each other and constitute three points in a triangle. when the consolidation started in mehatbgarh village, it was made a part of the scheme that village paths should be provided for going to and coming from aujan and ratta khera. it was ..... at any time for purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed, scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made by any officer under this act, call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such officer and may pass such necessary order in reference thereto as it thinks fit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 1966 (HC)

Prithvi Chand, Chandu Mal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-21-1966

Reported in : AIR1967P& H195

..... necessary to decide which view was correct. it may be pointed out that the full bench was concerned with the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act no. 80 of 1948, the question raised being whether that act conferred power on the state government to delegate its functions and powers with retrospective effect.shri i. m. lall has ..... support the beneficent reading of the power to make rules so as to enable the making of retrospective rules. in t. l. tandon v. state of punjab, civil appeals nos. 102 and 103 of 1960 decided on 11-8-1960 (sc), by a bench of five judges, the rules made by the ..... and co. ltd. v. union of india, 1957 s. c. r. 701: (air 1957 sc 478) and bihari lal batra v. chief settlement commissioner, (rural) punjab, (1964) 7 s. c. r. 192: (air 1965 sc 134). the counsel has submitted that there is no question here of violation of any right guaranteed by ..... 19(1) (f) and 31. reference was made by the learned single judge to a full bench decision of this court shivdev singh v. state of punjab, air 1959 punj 453, in which a decision by khosla and falshaw, jj. (as they then were) in cw no. 53 of 1951 decided on ..... legal objection to the making of rules with retrospective operation within permissible limits pursuant to this power. in the instant case, not only has the act enacted the general outline of the statutorypolicy, purpose, and scheme but the parliament has also retained an effective legislative control over the rule-making authority by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1966 (SC)

Sunder Singh and ors. Vs. NaraIn Singh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-11-1966

Reported in : AIR1966SC1977; [1966]3SCR863

..... decree for pre-emption. on appeal to the high court by the vendees, the high court held on the basis of section 24 of the patiala and east punjab states union holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, no. 5 of 2007 bk. (hereinafter referred to as the act), that it was open to the preemptor to follow the land which had been given to the vendees in ..... consolidation proceedings in lieu of the land which was the subject-matter of the sale deed. further in the high court another point was raised on behalf of four ..... is whether section 24 of the act makes any difference to this ordinary position of the law of pre-emption. that section reads as follows :- 'a land-owner or a tenant at will shall have the same right in land allotted to him in pursuance of the scheme of consolidation as he had in his original holding or tenancy as the case may ..... down that the land-owner or a tenant at will shall have the same right in the land allotted to him in pursuance of the scheme of consolidation as he had in his original holding or tenancy, it clearly implies that obligations would also remain the same. if that were not so and if his obligations were to disappear he would acquire .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 1966 (HC)

Aggarwal Wool and Thread Co. and anr. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and Assess ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-20-1966

Reported in : [1966]18STC405(P& H)

..... ) 61 p.l.r. 514 it was held that the state government could not delegate its powers which it exercised under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act to the additional director, consolidation, with effect from a prior date and that the notification dated 12th february, 1958, was ultra vires and illegal to the extent that it purported to delegate powers of ..... made by the chief commissioner by means of the notification dated 19th july, 1965, did not stand on the same footing as a notification issued under section 41 of the punjab consolidation act in respect of delegation of powers. according to mr. shankar, the chief commissioner has promulgated a rule in exercise of his rule-making power under section 26(2) (m) of ..... considering the effect of the notification which had been made with retrospective effect by the executive government and he regarded the rule as well-settled that the executive government while acting as a delegate of a legislative authority did not have plenary power to provide for retrospective operation unless and until that power had been expressly conferred by the parent enactment ..... rule if validly promulgated has the same force as the provisions of the principal act under which it has been made, but all that is being pointed out by me is that there are points of distinction between the madras case and the present cases. i would, therefore, hold that even in exercise of rule-making power the chief commissioner in the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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