Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-21-1984
Reported in : AIR1984P& H216
..... the constitution of india for quashing the order of additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, jullundur, dated march 27, 1981. the consolidation proceedings in the village of the parties, lakhan kalan, tehsil and district kapurthala, started in the year 1956. the petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') on which the impugned order was passed, was filed on ..... september 21, 1976, along with an application for condonation of delay. the addl. director consolidation of holdings, though noticed that the petition was barred by time, yet without condoning the delay ..... appearance and filed written statement. on the question of delay, the plea put forth on behalf of respondent no. 2 is that the provisions of rule 18 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949 (hereinafter called the 'rules') did not apply as the petition had been filed against the scheme and not against any order. in support of that plea, reliance .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-25-1984
Reported in : AIR1986P& H172
..... the management and control of the land vests in the panchayat the same having been reversed for common purposes under s. 18 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act. 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the consolidation act). the finding of the collector was affirmed on appeal by the commissioner vide orders annexure p3, dated january 19, 1982. it is this order which has been assailed though ..... this petition under art. 226 of the constitution.3. it is not disputed that by virtue of the provision of s. 3 of the punjab gram ..... conditions have to be satisfied that it was reserved for common purpose under s. 18 and its management and control vests in the gram panchayat under s. 23a of the consolidation act. no doubt, the land in dispute is entered in the name of proprietary body of the village in the revenue record but this fact alone would not be sufficient to ..... relied upon do not show that the land in dispute was reserved for any common purpose. a list of the land reserved for common purposes under s. 8 of the consolidation act has been attached by the petitioners as annexure p1/1. against item no. 18 it is stated that 80 kanals of land has been reserved for passages to agricultural land .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-31-1984
Reported in : II(1984)ACC218; AIR1984SC790; (1984)1CompLJ199(SC); 1984(1)SCALE142; 2SCR768; 1984(16)LC364(SC)
..... by sub-section (4) of section 45. the object is that if the transport authority is satisfied that such application was made for the purpose of preventing the issue of a temporary permit under section 62, then it can forfeit the whole or part of the security deposit. this consideration does not and cannot ..... impleading the appellant as a respondent thereto. a learned single judge of the said high court dismissed the appellant's said writ petition on december 2, 1974, holding that the appellant was not a necessary party to the said writ petition no. 3360 of 1974. on december 23/24, 1974, the second respondent granted ..... and between what persons the statutory fiction is to be resorted to.23. this passage was quoted with approval by the house of lords in arthur hill v. east and west india dock company  l.r. 9 a.c. 455. this principle of statutory interpretation has been accepted by this court. in the bengal ..... result in the grant of a new permit.19. in a passage which has become a classic lord asquith in the house of lords in the case of east end dwellings co. ltd. v. finsbury borough gouncil  2 all. e.r. 587 said :if you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of ..... the order of the learned single judge dismissing its writ petition, the appellant filed an intra-court appeal under section 4 of the karnataka high court act, 1961 (mysore act v of 1962), being writ appeal no. 949 of 1979. the division bench, which heard the said appeal, referred the following question to a larger .....Tag this Judgment!