Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Year: 1969 Page 1 of about 5 results (0.051 seconds)

Mar 19 1969 (HC)

Ajit Singh Vs. Smt. Subaghan and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-19-1969

Reported in : AIR1970P& H93

..... numbers were sold to ajit singh appellant. 2. sometime in 1961 proceedings for consolidation of holdings started in village barod in consequence of a notification under section 14 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (east punjab act 50 of 1948). in the course of the preparation of the scheme of consolidation on february 5, 1964, the mukhtar or attorney of respondent 1 raised an objection ..... of land at any time. so he dismissed ajit singh appellant's application under section 36 of east punjab act 50 of 1948. against that order there was an application under section 42 of that act by ajit singh appellant to the director of consolidation of holdings, respondent 3. after referring to the co-ownership of respondent 1 and her son ranjit singh ..... shall be deemed to be extinguished.' the whole of chapter ix of the punjab land revenue act, 1887. (punjab act 17 of 1887), is not to apply to any matter of partition during the consolidation of holdings after a notification under sub-section (1) of section 14 of east punjab act 50 of 1948, but to that the exception is section 117 or the first-mentioned ..... case was followed and the approach prevailed. so even when an officer under east punjab act 50 of 1948 decides that no question of title arises before him and proceeds to make a provision for partition in a scheme of consolidation of holdings and during the course of consolidation of holdings no step is taken by a person aggrieved to file a suit to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 1969 (HC)

Hardial Singh and ors. Vs. Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Punj ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-01-1969

Reported in : AIR1970P& H261

..... of the petitioners, in the area of the adjoining village chokhar along the land allotted in repartition to respondent 4. in an application under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (east punjab act 50 of 1948), respondent 4 sought relief that the path provided to the land of santa singh be deleted because another path is available from village khandoor to village cho-khar ..... authority to make an order which is contrary to the scheme without amending the scheme. the scheme could have been ordered to be amended under section 36 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948. no such order was ever made. as stated before, no objections were ever filed or have been shown to have been filed to the scheme as confirmed, and the ..... . respondent 2, additional director of consolidation of holdings, accepting the application of respondent 4, set aside the order of respondent 3, settlement officer, of november 18, 1964, whereby the path in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 22 1969 (HC)

Sunder Lal and ors. Vs. the State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-22-1969

Reported in : AIR1970P& H241

..... law.44. in deep chand's case, (1963) 66 pun lr 318 = (air 1964 punj 241) (fb) ) it was held that an additional director of consolidation was not empowered under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, to review his order on the merits of the case. he could not, therefore, recall his earlier erroneous and unjust order, whenever it was discovered ..... 1. r. t. rangachari v. secy. of state, air 1937 pc 27.2. gursewak singh harnam singh v. state, air 1954 pepsu 129.3. deep chand v. additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, jullundur, (1964) 66 pun lr 318=(air 1964 punj 249 fb).34. the factual position regarding this point is that on 29th of october, 1956, the petitioners were confirmed as ..... petitioners were initially appointed as temporary hands against temporary posts. the vacancies for war service candidates had already been filled in the joint punjab before partition and no such vacancy was passed on to the share of the east punjab government at the time of partition. it was admitted that the petitioners were confirmed as assistant clerks by the order dated 29th october ..... these petitions have to be allowed. i, accordingly, accept them and award the petitioners a writ of mandamus directing the state government of punjab to restore the petitioners to the same position in the cadre which they were holding before the impugned order was passed and give them the benefit of their war service referred to in rule 6. in view of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 1969 (HC)

Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue and Company La ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-18-1969

Reported in : [1970]40CompCas83(Cal),73CWN446

..... 1503, in which the majority of the supreme court held that when the government delegated its power to entertain and decide an appeal under section 21(4) of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, to an officer who pursuant to such delegation heard the appeal and made an order, such an order was an order of the government, as it was made under ..... repelled by the supreme court on the ground that the rule was an emergency measure which authorised the government to detain a person without trial with a view to prevent him from acting to the detriment of public order and safety. it was further held that the satisfaction of the authority and the confirmation of the order of detention were not subject ..... : [1966]2scr982 . in that case the state government required all applications for cinema licences to be forwarded to it for disposal although section 5(1) and (2) of the punjab cinemas (regulations) act conferred the jurisdiction to consider and deal with such applications on the licensing authority. it was held that the state government could not convert itself into the original authority ..... the powers created by section 237. reliance was next placed on a decision of the court of appeal in england, blackpool corporation v. locker, [1948] 1 all e.r. 85. in that case the minister of health, acting under the provisions of the defence (general) regulations, 1939, delegated his powers to take possession of dwelling-houses to local authorities by means of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 1969 (HC)

Govindsingh Ramsinghbhai Vaghela Vs. C. Subbarav and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Aug-18-1969

Reported in : AIR1971Guj131; (1970)GLR897

..... not far to seek. the preamble and the operative provisions of the act clearly indicate what is the purpose or policy of this enactment. the avowed purpose of the act is to prevent fragmentation of agricultural holdings and to provide for consolidation of agricultural holdings for the purpose of better cultivation of the lands. it is with this central object and purpose in view that ..... the legislature has enacted in the act two different sets of provisions. both sets of provisions are in ..... the expression 'modification'. the same view was also taken by the supreme court in atma ram's case : air1959sc519 (supra) where the statute challenged was the punjab security of land tenure act, 1953. the act inter alia imposed a restriction on the land owners' right to transfer in this respect namely, it modified his right of transfer in so far as it ..... -section (3). on the plain terms of the section, the power is conferred on the 'collector' and unlike the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1948, and the gujarat agricultural lands ceiling act, 1960, the word 'collector' is not defined in the act to include assistant collector and deputy collector. in fact there is no definition of the word 'collector' in the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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