Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Year: 1968 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.039 seconds)

Mar 19 1968 (HC)

Pala Singh Vs. State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-19-1968

Reported in : AIR1968P& H376

..... question raised with regard to the validity and vires of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (east punjab act 50 of 1948).2. the particular sub-section reads --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 ..... in this petition is that in the village of the petitioners consolidation had already been done under the provisions of the punjab consolidation of holdings act, 1936 (punjab act 4 of 1936), sometime in the year 1944-45. the notification under sub-section (1) of section 14 of east punjab act 50 of 1948 in regard to this village was issued by the state government ..... sometime in 1962. this was something like seventeen years after the first consolidation under the provisions of punjab act 4 of ..... that case has no concern whatsoever with the present cases under east punjab act 50 of 1948. under the provisions of this statute the rightholders in an estate or estates in which consolidation goes on are not deprived of possession of their holdings until they are provided with substituted holdings in consequence of repartition. on appreciation of this, it has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 1968 (HC)

Karnail Singh and anr. Vs. the Additional Director, Consolidation of H ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-22-1968

Reported in : AIR1968P& H469

..... anything contained in chapter ix of the punjab land revenue act, 1887 except section 117 thereof, the schema prepared by the consolidation officer may provide for partition of land between joint owners of land. ..... to 7 that the question of title being raised, the consolidation authorities should stay their hands from carrying out the partition of the joint khata.3. the relevant provision of law in this matter is section 16-a of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the act'), sub-section (1) of which provides as under:--'notwithstanding ..... tindra lal j. concurring) that-'instead of any partition being effected according to the procedure laid down in chapter ix of the punjab land revenue act, the partition has to be effected by the consolidation authorities in case the share of the joint owners can be ascertained with certainty from the record-of-rights or there is ..... title is decided by a competent court. this follows from the decisions relating to section 117 of the punjab land revenue act which constitutes an exception to the other provisions of that act in section 16-a. a consolidation officer, at any rate, will not be justified in making a provision for partition of joint property in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 1968 (SC)

Ram Autar Jalan Vs. Coal Products P. Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-20-1968

Reported in : [1970]40CompCas715(SC)

..... banking accounts in terms of the order dated june 27, 1966. the learned judges have also made it clear that the order of injunction will not prevent the defendant from acting as agent or authorised attorney of bhagwati debi if she wants to appoint the defendant as agent or authorised attorney on her behalf. that is, the ..... effecting the necessary changes in its registers; (ii) that sunil kumar ganguli, who was a shareholder and director till august 31, 1964, transferred on that date his entire holding of 500 shares in favour of the defendant's sister, bhagwati debi, and, as such, s.k. ganguli ceased to be a director; (iii) that at the ..... article 104 of the articles of association of the company deals with the qualifications of a director. it is the plaintiff's case that the defendant did not hold, on august 31, 1964, any shares in the company, nor has the defendant obtained any shares till the date of the suit. therefore, it was averred ..... certificate in spite of the promise made by the managing director. the defendant has been and continues to be a shareholder of the company, holding 1,000 fully paid up shares since october 30, 1963. prior to august 31, 1964, one sunil kumar ganguli was a director of the company ..... holding 500 equity shares of rs. 10 each. sunil kumar ganguli, to the knowledge of kishorilal, transferred, by a deed dated august 31, 1964, his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 1968 (HC)

Bhan Singh (Deceased) Lambardar Vs. Addl. Director, Consolidation of H ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-13-1968

Reported in : AIR1968P& H508

..... district jullundur challenging the legality of the orders dated 22-8-1963 and 31-1-1964 passed by the additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, respondent no. 1, under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act (hereinafter called the act).2. the consolidation proceedings in the village of the petitioner started in 1956. the notification under section 14(1) of the ..... act was dated 1-9-1956 and it was published in the gazette on 14th of september, 1956. after the repartition had been carried ..... out under section 21(1) of the act. ..... at two places. the result was that they had been allotted the entire land away from the abadi, while the petitioner got his holding near the abadi. these objections were rejected by the consolidation officer and on appeal by the settlement officer and then by the assistant director, but subsequent-ly on revision under section 42 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1968 (HC)

Umrao Singh Vs. Man Singh and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-11-1968

Reported in : 4(1968)DLT562

..... also challenged on the ground that ranjit singh was a 'bhumidhar' and as such the sale contravened the provisions of section 88 of the delhi land reforms act, 1954 and the east punlab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 the parties went to trial on the following issues: - (1) whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? opd (2). whether the plaintiff is ..... declared bhumidhars on the commencement of this act; (b) every class of tenants toher than those referred to in clause (a) ..... subject to all the liablities conferred or imposed upon a bhumidhar by or under this act, namely : - (a) a proprietor holding. sir or khudkasht land a proprietor's grove holder, an occupancy tenant tinder section 5 of the punjab tenancy act, 1887 paying rent at revenue rates or a person holding land under patta sawami, or istamarari with rights of transfer by sale, who are ..... ) the appellant contends that the objects of the act as set out in the preamble are to provide for modification of zamindari system so as to create an uniform body of peasant proprietors without intermediaries, and for the unification of punjab and agra systems of tenancy laws in force in the territory of delhi and to make provisions for toher matters .....

Tag this Judgment!


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