Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-28-1991
Reported in : AIR1997Delhi267; 44(1991)DLT198
..... 14.10.83 between afool chand etc. v. charon singh and that of the director of consolidation/financial commissioner delhi in case no. 380/83-ca decided on 3.7.86 under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter called the act) is null and void, illegal and in-operative qua the rights of the plaintiffs in ..... think the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners has great force. in the aforesaid authority, it was held, 'in the proviso to section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, it has been laid down that the power of varying or reversing an order, scheme or repartition, is to be exercised only after the fulfillment of the ..... statement in which they also took up a preliminary objection that the suit was barred under section 44 of the act. the trial court framed the following preliminary issue : (1)whether suit is barred by section 44 of east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act (4) it came to the conclusion that the suit was not barred by section 44 of the ..... act because serious allegations had been against the revenue authorities. (5) i have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-13-1991
Reported in : (1993)105PLR188
..... been filed for quashing of the order dated 22.5.1987 passed by the additional director, consolidation of holidays, punjab, jalandhar, on a petition filed by the right-holders under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation & prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the act).3. the right-holders of village longowal claim that they along with others, are the owners ..... previously there was a proviso to this rule that land which vested in the panchayat under the punjab village common lands (regulations) act, 1961 or the lands, the management and control of which vested in the panchayat under the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1949 shall revert to the co-sharers and the owners thereof. this proviso, however, was ..... the land in dispute or transfer the same to any other persons, filed a petition under section 42 of the act before the director, consolidation of holdings, punjab who entrusted the same to the additional director of consolidation for decision. in the application, it was stated that the right-holders of the village are the original owners of ..... municipal committee to manage land measuring 365 kanal whereas municipal committee in civil writ petition no. 1365 of 1988 has challenged the order of the additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab where the land apart from 365 kanal has been allowed to be partitioned amongst the right-holders.5. mr. jasbir singh, advocate, learned counsel for the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-29-1991
Reported in : (1992)101PLR616
..... jagtar singh v. additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, 1984 r.l.r. 209.7. for the reasons recorded above, the present petition ..... not have interfered with the matter after almost 30 years, is also misplaced. the director consolidation undertook to undo a mistake and that matter was entirely within his jurisdiction. the director can under section 42 of the east punjab, holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, interfere with a matter such as the present one, at any time as held by this court in ..... 13th june, 1957. the challenge had been made by the private respondent to the sanction of this mutation before the director of consolidation of holdings on the ground that there was, in fact, no order of the punjab government directing that the mutation be sanctioned in favour of the gram panchayat and, as already mentioned above, this petition has ..... was involved between the parties, the matter should have been decided by taking recourse to section 11 of the punjab village common lands and regulation act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'regulation act'). he has also asserted that the director of consolidation should not have, in any case, interferred with the matter after the lapse of over 30 years.3. .....Tag this Judgment!