Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Year: 1967 Page 1 of about 9 results (0.065 seconds)

Mar 28 1967 (SC)

Johrimal Vs. Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-28-1967

Reported in : AIR1967SC1568; (1967)69PLR824; [1967]3SCR286

..... acting under s. 20 of the act. the scheme, among other things, provided that the owners of permanent ..... appeal is brought, by certificate, from the judgment of the punjab high court dated november 8, 1960, in letters patent appeal no. 284 of 1956. 2. for the consolidation of land holdings in village kheowara, a scheme was prepared by the consolidation officer under s. 14 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, (act l of 1948), hereinafter called the 'act', and the scheme was confirmed by the settlement officer ..... of the full bench was that the impugned order amounted to an alteration of the consolidation scheme and the state government had power, under s. 42 of the act as amendment by the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) (second amendment and validation) act (punjab act 27 of 1960), to make any change in the consolidation scheme subject to the requirements of that section. the present appeal is brought by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 08 1967 (HC)

Mange, S/O Nanak and anr. Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Ho ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-08-1967

Reported in : AIR1968P& H10

..... referred to as the act). respondent no. 2 then filed an application under section 42 before the director, consolidation of holdings this was forwarded by the director in march 1955 to the settlement officer. consolidation of holdings, for report. the report was sent to the director under the ..... the assistant director, consolidation of holdings. the assistant director remanded the case to the settlement officer but it was decided against respondent no. 2. it would appear that the settlement officer observed in his order that the respondent's contention could be sympathetically looked into in case he filed a revision petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter to be ..... signatures of the deputy commissioner who was overall in-charge of consolidation work in .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 25 1967 (HC)

S. Gurdial Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-25-1967

Reported in : AIR1968P& H267; 1967CriLJ909

..... . in these 3 writ petitions (nos. 913, 915 and 1061 of 1966) a common point of law was raised namely, that section 14(1) of the east punjab holdings, (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the act, was ultra vires the constitution and for this reason the three petitions were ordered to be heard by a full bench section 14(1) runs as follows ..... (1). it is not necessary to decide that point in this writ also.16. three main points were urged:17. first, that in view of rule 18 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) which runs as under:'18. an application under section 42 shall be made within six months of the date of the ..... :'14 (1) with the object of consolidating holdings in any estate or group of estates or any part thereof for the purpose of better cultivation of lands therein the ..... it is now well settled that a petitioner in order to get extension of time under section 5 of the indian limitation act must explain each day's delay. in bhagat singh v. additional director, consolidation of holdings punjab, 1966-68 pun lr 496 a bench of this court observed as follows 'rule 18 ***** prescribes a period of limitation for filing a revision under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 1967 (HC)

Sulochana Dadaji Vs. Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-25-1967

Reported in : AIR1968Bom88; (1967)69BOMLR797; 1967MhLJ689

..... the state government was questioned. the majority decision of the supreme court was in the following terms:'where the state government has, under section 41(1) of the east punjab holdings(consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, delegated its power given under section 21(4) to hear appeals to an officer, an order passed by such officer is an order passed by the state ..... of judicial functions were considered by their lordships of the supreme court in roopchand v. state of punjab, : air1963sc1503 . under section 21(4) of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, the state government had powers to hear appeals against orders passed under that act. these powers were delegated to a subordinate officer and the delegate made an order in exercise of ..... government itself and not an order passed by any officer under this act' within the meaning of section 42. the order contemplated by section 42 is an order passed ..... we are taking, it is not necessary to consider the other submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. we may however mention that admittedly the collector proceeded to hold the so-called further inquiry and caused an inspection to be made by the sub-divisional officer behind the back of the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 1967 (SC)

Deputy Commissioner and Collector, Kamrup and ors. Vs. Durga Nath Sarm ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-15-1967

Reported in : AIR1968SC394; [1968]1SCR561

..... vest it in another without reference to any agrarian reform. in ranjit singh v. state of punjab : [1965]1scr82 , the court held that the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 as amended by act no. 27 of 1960 was protected by art. 31a, as the general scheme of the act was definitely agrarian reform and under its provisions something ancillary thereto in the interests of rural economy ..... to the legislative judgment as to what principles should guide the determination of the amount payable. the court decided that west bengal land development and planning act, 1948 passed primarily for the settlement of immigrants from east bengal fixing the market value on december 31, 1946 as the ceiling on compensation without reference to the value of the land at the time ..... of kamrup to the assam government for approval, but this proposal was eventually dropped. on may 27, 1960 the assam acquisition of land for flood control and prevention of erosion (validation) act, 1959 (assam act no. 21 of 1960) was passed with the assent of the president. in november 1960, the state government passed an order for the acquisition of the respondent ..... for other purposes. we hold that assam act no. 6 of 1955 is violative of art. 14. 30. on behalf of the respondent it was contended that act no. 6 of 1955 is violative of art. 14 on the additional ground that it is open to the state to acquired property in connection with flood control or prevention of erosion either under the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 1967 (HC)

Mange Nanak and anr. Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holding ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-20-1967

Reported in : AIR1968P& H216

..... main question of law involved the consideration of the true scope and ambit of the powers of the state government or the additional director under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 as also the procedure to be followed while ordering readjustments or changes in repartition which were in contravention of the scheme of ..... consolidation. this matter had been considered in a number of decisions of this court including a previous full bench decision and the question was whether the majority judgment of the full bench in director, consolidation of holdings v. ..... the writ petition as has been done in the present case on the ground that the action of the inferior tribunal had not resulted in injustice although such tribunal had acted beyond its jurisdiction. this decision of their lordships was not brought to our notice when the matter was argued before the full bench.4. it is not possible to ..... fortiori this court, while hearing an appeal from the high court's decision, is entitled to exercise it where it finds that an inferior tribunal has acted beyond its jurisdiction. where an inferior tribunal acts beyond its jurisdiction its action necessarily results in injustice to the party against whom action has been taken. for, justice has to be done according to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 1967 (HC)

Thambu Devi Ram and ors. Vs. Additional Director Consolidation of Hold ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-13-1967

Reported in : AIR1968P& H282

..... criminal procedure is prescribed by the limitation act there is no mention of the east punjab holding (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation)act (50 of 1948), in the schedule to the limitation act, and no period of limitation for any proceedings under that act is prescribed by the general law of limitation. the period of limitation prescribed by rule 18 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949, is not a special period ..... 1 and july 25, 1964 (collectively marked annexure 'a' to the writ petition), the additional director consolidation of holdings punjab hissar allowed the application of mange and risal singh (respondents nos. 2 and 3) under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act (50 of 1948) (hereinafter called the act), and made certain changes in the repartition of village petwar, tahsil hansi, district hissar. as stated in ..... paragraph 2 of the written statement of the additional director consolidation of holdings, punjab hissar in reply to the writ petition repartition of the village was published .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 1967 (SC)

Ghatge and Patil Concern's Employees' Union Vs. Ghatge and Patil (Tran ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-22-1967

Reported in : AIR1968SC503; [1968(16)FLR302]; (1968)ILLJ566SC; [1968]1SCR300

..... since they apparently considered them to before favorable than the terms of their former employment. in this view of the matter it is difficult to hold that the tribunal was wrong in its conclusion that there was no exploitation of the drivers. it is also equally true that there is no ..... three days' notice on either side an hence it was hardly necessary for the union to take recourse to a tribunal for getting it abolished. holding that the new system could not be said to be an unfair or anti-labour practice the tribunal rejected the claim of the union. the ..... from a motor transport worker an existing benefit which is more favorable than those under the act or to prevent him from entering into an agreement for better rights and privileges than those given to him by the act. 5. the company frankly admitted at all stages that it was impossible for it ..... how to re-instate persons who had voluntarily resigned their services and could not be said to be dismissed, discharged or retrenched within the industrial disputes act the tribunal also held that the agreements were simple agreements for transport of goods and were essentially fair to the operators. of course, there were ..... the employment of children, enjoins the carrying of tokens by employees and provides for their medical examination. the seventh chapter applies the payment of wages act and provides for annual leave with wages and extra wage for over-time. the eighth chapter provides for penalties and procedure and the ninth chapter gives .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 14 1967 (HC)

Bhagwan Singh and ors. Vs. Additional Director of Consolidation, Punja ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-14-1967

Reported in : AIR1968P& H260

..... 42 erf the act to the additional director of consolidation (respondent no. 1). he did not implead the petitioners therein. this additional director ..... as 'the act'). was also dismissed.surjit singh, then, made an application under section ..... petition are, that consolidation operations took place in village sahianwali in 1962. on repartition, some land was allotted to the petitioners in accordance with the consolidation scheme. surjit singh, respondent 2, unsuccessfully appealed against that allotment to the settlement officer, bhatinda. his further appeal to the assistant director of consolidation under section 21 (4) of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act (50 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to .....

Tag this Judgment!

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