Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Year: 1971 Page 1 of about 7 results (0.039 seconds)

Sep 23 1971 (HC)

The State of Haryana and ors. Vs. Hari Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-23-1971

Reported in : AIR1972P& H328

..... as used in rule 16(ii) of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949, referred to hereinafter as the rules, framed under the rule-making power conferred by section 46 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, hereinafter called the act.2. a scheme of consolidation of holdings for village bahlba, tehsil gohana, district rohtak, was ..... prepared by the consolidation authorities and an area measuring 3220 kanals 4 marlas was reserved for common purposes ..... allegedly under section 18 of the act. sixty-six right-holders filed a ..... or otherwise.' section 2 (g) defined the expression 'prescribed' as follows:--' 'prescribed' means prescribed by rules made under this act;'section 18 admittedly empowers the consolidation officer to reserve land for common purpose in certain contingencies but the manner in which reservation is to be made is guided and controlled .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 1971 (HC)

Sher Singh Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-06-1971

Reported in : AIR1972P& H294

..... the order dated the 12th of june, 1970 (a correct copy of which is annexure 'b-i' to the petition) passed by the additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, chandigarh under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948.2. it is now common ground between the parties that the impugned order was passed in the absence of and without notice to the petitioner according ..... parties and is likely to be repeated even if proceedings under section 42 are taken after notice to the petitioner. with this contention i cannot agree. the scheme of consolidation of holdings applicable to the parties states that in case land has to be allotted to a party away from his major portions, an attempt should be made to see that it ..... relations is present at the hearing. on the contrary, in kanshi ram v. state of punjab, 1970 rev lr 309 (punj), mehar singh, c. j., and r. s. narula, j., held that while a co-sharer may be taken to represent his other co-sharers during consolidation proceedings because of the sameness or similarity of their interests, a mere relation could not ..... represented before the additional director. with this contention i do not find myself in agreement. it has no doubt been held in rattan v. state of punjab, 1965-67 punj lr 276 & bhagwana v. state of punjab, 1966 cur lj 5 (punj) that where one of several joint land-owners has been served with a notice of a petition under section 42 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 1971 (HC)

Jita Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-12-1971

Reported in : AIR1972P& H281

..... the act) before the state government and also instituted an appeal before the settlement officer. the appeal was dismissed on the ..... 29th of november, 1967 (annexure 'e' to the petition) but the additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, ferozepur, exercising the powers of the state government under section ..... above set out. the consolidation officer complied with annexure 'c' and made allotments in accordance therewith to various parties as detailed in his order of the 6th of september, 1966 (annexure 'd' to the petition). against this order of the consolidation officer respondents nos. 5 to 15 filed a revision petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 1971 (SC)

Tara Chand and anr. Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-21-1971

Reported in : AIR1971SC1891; 1971CriLJ1411; (1971)2SCC579

..... /2) for extension of the abadi-deh he continued to remain in its physical possession as consolidation proceedings had been stayed by an order of the punjab high court in 1055. reliance has also been placed on the procedure prescribed by section 23 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act 1948 for change of possession. it is pointed out that although in his report the patwari ..... as a result of consolidation it had been allotted to the village panchayat for extension of abadi-deh. it is significant and this circumstance carries much weight that there were tractor marks in khasra no ..... prove that khasra no. 174/2 was under the cultivating possession of tarachand. the proved facts that originally this land was in his possession as a tenant and that the consolidation proceedings had been stayed coupled with other circumstances leave no doubt in our mind that tarachand had continued to remain in actual possession of khasra no. 174/2 even though ..... whether this khasra number which admittedly was in possession of tarachand appellant before the killabandi in the year 1952-53 continued to remain in his physical possession even after the consolidation proceedings had started and it had been shown in the khasra girdawarl as the property of the village abadi deh. on behalf of the appellants it was claimed that it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 19 1971 (HC)

Joginder Singh and ors. Vs. the State and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-19-1971

Reported in : AIR1972P& H196; 1974CriLJ117

order1. the sole ground on which the scheme of consolidation of holdings prepared for village kalianwali in tehsil sirsa, district hissar, is challenged in this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india is that the concerned consolidation officer, who figures as respondent no. 3 did not obtain the advice of the village committee constituted under rule 4 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949, although it was incumbent upon him to do so before finalization of the scheme, as provided in section 14 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1948. 2. the petition must fail for the simple reason that the ground on which the scheme is now challenged was never put forward by the petitioner in the form of objections which they had the right to prefer either under the provisions of section 19 of the act to respondent no. 3 or under those of section 21 (3) thereof to the settlement officer (respondent no. 2). not having availed of the remedies provided to them under the act itself, they cannot be held entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court. 3. the petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. 4. petition dismissed.

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 1971 (HC)

Umrao Singh Vs. Man Singh and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-16-1971

Reported in : AIR1972Delhi1

..... ranjit singh was a bhumidhar of the land and as such the sale contravened the provisions of section 33 of the delhi land reforms act and the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act. 1948. (3) folowing issues were framed by the trial court.- 1.'whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try this suit 2. ..... building on the land and applied to the court of civil judge for fixation of standard rent. the application was rejected by the court holding that rent control act, 1947 did not apply to open land let for constructing building for residence, education, business 50 trade or storage. the order was of ..... in another case that a building lease in respect of an open plot is not excluded from bombay rents, hotel and lodging house rates control act, 1947 solely because open land was used for residence or educational purposes after building a structure on it. the appellant filed a fresh, petition ..... broad proposition that one who, without mistake induced by the opposite party, has taken a particular position deliberately in the course of a litigation must act consistently with it; one cannot play fast and loose.'it has also been observed there : 'theprinciple under consideration will apply to another suit than ..... plaintiff is the bhumidar of the land in suit? 2. xxxx xx xxx x 3. whether the present suit is barred under section 192 of the act. 4. xx x x x xxxx 5. whether this court has jurisdiction to try the suit?'on issue no. 1 the finding of the additional .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 1971 (SC)

Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. the Collector of Customs, ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-06-1971

Reported in : AIR1971SC704; (1971)3SCC170

..... consignments distinct and decided them together as if there was no difference between the conditions of the two licences.6. the revision applications filed before the government of india were consolidated for the purpose of hearing and a single order was passed. the officer who heard the revision applications on behalf of the central government was of the view, and rightly ..... that we should set aside the order of the central government in respect of those four consignments and remit the fine in its entirety, leaving the central government free to hold an inquiry only with regard to the remaining two consignments covered by the collector's orders nos. s/10-22/64lc and s/10-71/64lc dated march 2, 1964 ..... was in contravention of the import control order no. 17/55 of december 7, 1955 issued under section 3 of the imports and exports (control) act, 1947, and punishable under section 112 of the customs act, 1962. the collector on that view passed an order imposing penalties for different amounts in respect of each of the consignments. the company preferred appeals to .....

Tag this Judgment!


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