Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Year: 1988 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.039 seconds)

Nov 02 1988 (SC)

Amar Singh, Jagram (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Chandgi (Dead) by Lrs.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-02-1988

Reported in : AIR1989SC413; JT1988(4)SC364; 1988(2)SCALE1225; (1989)1SCC308; [1988]Supp3SCR738

..... in theory for every right there may be remedy in practice such tenants have no remedy if the interpretation of the scheme of the provisions of the consolidation act (east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948) made by the high court is upheld. the original appellants, the tillers of the lands who have failed to regain possession for a quarter century after ..... the consolidation officer upheld their claim in 1960, having died during the pendency of these appeals instituted 15 years back without reaping the fruits of the order in their ..... the validity of the opinion formed by the high court. the object of the consolidation act as revealed by the preamble is 'to provide for the compulsory consolidation of agricultural holdings and for preventing the fragmentation of the agricultural holdings in the state of punjab'. the main objective of the act is to secure that the agricultural operations are carried on in a more efficient ..... is attached to the question as to which land should be allotted to whom in lieu of and in substitution of the original holdings; (3) the reading of the relevant provisions of the scheme of the consolidation act in the unwarranted manner which commended itself to the high court would result in gross injustice. the mortgagees, the non-occupancy .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 1988 (HC)

Mela Singh and ors. Vs. the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Himac ...

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-23-1988

Reported in : AIR1989HP78

..... act and rules, namely, section 18 of the punjab act and rule 16 thereof.12. in consequence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed, ..... law.11. the principle aforesaid was upheld by a constitution bench of the supreme court in ranjit singh v. state of punjab, air 1965 sc 632, which was a case arising out of proceedings under the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, (as amended). their lordships considered provisions akin to section 27 and rule 26 of the himachal pradesh ..... and residents of village basdehra, tehsil and district una. they have approached this court for redress in the matter of proceedings under the himachal pradesh holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1974 (for brief; 'the act').2. the dispute centres round khasra plot no. 573 (old). the entire khasra plot, according to the jamabandi for the year 1968-69 ..... on payment of compensation or otherwise;(f) to (v) ....... (3) and (4) ......' 8. in exercise of the powers contained in this provision, the himachal pradesh holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1973, have been framed. rule 26 is relevant for purposes of the present case. sub-rule (1) of this rule, which alone need be read, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 08 1988 (HC)

Joginder Singh and ors. Vs. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punja ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-08-1988

Reported in : AIR1989P&H234

..... g.r. majithia, j.1. the writ petitioners have challenged the order of the director of consolidation of holdings punjab passed under section 42 of the east punjab holding (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act. 1948 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the act) in this petition.2. the brief facts as unfolded in the writ petition are these. the petitioners are in possession of different parcels of land under ..... but had attacked the validity of the scheme and the re-partition, and the bar of limitation of six months under rule 18 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949, is not attracted to the facts of the instant case.11. mr. palli next submitted that the impugned order is vitiated because the petitioners were not ..... a pro rata cut deserves to be redistributed among the proprietors in accordance with their rights.8. rule 16(ii) of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949 may be noticed : --'in an estate or estates, where during consolidation proceedings there is no shamilat deh land or such land is considered inadequate, land shall be reserved for the village panchayat and ..... . the right holders of the village, including respondents 3 to 6. preferred a petition under section 42 of the act before the director of consolidation of holdings. punjab, in aug. 1985. contending that the land in dispute was banjar qadim and according to the entry in the wajib-ul-arz of the village it had to .....

Tag this Judgment!


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