Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Year: 1992 Page 1 of about 6 results (0.043 seconds)

Feb 19 1992 (HC)

Ram Lal and ors. Vs. Madan Jha and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-19-1992

Reported in : 1992(23)DRJ62; 1992RLR170

..... of the rasta to their chaks lying next to those of the petitioners and hence the respondent moved an application under section 42 of the the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 before the the financial commissioner in april, 1987. my attention has been drawn towards aksh shajra of the year 1953-54 showing that during the ..... bids was including khasra no. 22/1 fell to the share of the petitioners. one ranjit singh filed an application under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 before the financial commissioner in april. 1987. claiming passage to his fields. the financial accepted that application and remanded the case to the settlement officer ..... (consolidation) for providing passage to the fields of ranjit singh. the settlement officer (consolidation) vide order dated 30/8/88 directed that 'a rasta having width of 2 ghatha towards eastern ..... consolidation proceedings rasta was carved out from khasra 22/1/1. according to the learned counsel the version given by the petitioners is contrary to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 1992 (HC)

Harminder Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Punjab, Through Director, Co ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-04-1992

Reported in : (1993)103PLR638

..... question raised is as to whether the government is competent to issue notification under sub section (1) of section 14 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentations) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the act) in an estate where consolidation had already taken place under the act.2. the writ-petitioners are the land-owners in village khadial tehsil sunam district sangrur. notification under section 14(1) of ..... the act was published on 21.9.1953 and confirmed on 6.12.1959. subsequently, the scheme was revoked and withdrawn on 15.10 ..... in view of this provision, the authorities should have acted under section 36 of the act instead of ordering fresh consolidation under the act. lastly, he submitted that the scheme of the act is to consolidate the holdings and to prevent future fragmentation and, therefore, the government is bound to act under chapter ii of the act instead of ordering reconsolidation of holdings.5. in order to appreciate the contention advanced by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 1992 (HC)

Gram Panchayat Vs. the State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-03-1992

Reported in : (1992)102PLR538

..... same order though identified as annexure p-2 which had been impugned in those connected matters. vide order annexure p-2, the additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, exercising the powers under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, has given a positive finding that the land in question vested in the proprietors of the village and was not shamlat deh. he has also ..... lacking in the order.4. in view of what has been held above, this petition is allowed. annexure p-2 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the director consolidation of holdings, punjab, for re-decision after giving the concerned parties an appropriate hearing. the parties are directed to be present before the said authority on 25th september, 1992. no costs. r .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 1992 (HC)

Bhagwan Dass and ors. Vs. Kuldip Singh and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-10-1992

Reported in : AIR1992Delhi319; 48(1992)DLT546

..... operations are in progress. this is in pursuance to the notification issued under section 30 of the east punjab holding (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act), 1948. these sales are permitted after seeking permission of the consolidation officer under section 30 of the said act. thereforee, the defendants have approached the plaintiff repeatedly for getting the signatures on the application forms but it is in fact the ..... i have heard mr. c.b. verma, counsel for the plaintiff and mr. rana counsel for the defendant/applicant and perused the record. admittedly, there was a notification of consolidation but the sales are permitted after obtaining no objection certificate. the defendant has prime facia proved that he had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the ..... amount. defendants have already been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. the application seeking 'no objection certificate' under the delhi land (restriction on transfer) act, 1975 required the signature of both the parties but the plaintiff refused to sign the same. on account of quashing of the notification under section 4 of the land ..... acquisition act in november, 1980, the land in south delhi has became available and thereforee the plaintiff wants to frustrate the contract. hence plaintiff should not allowed to take advantage .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 1992 (SC)

R. Banerjee and Others Vs. H.D. Dubey and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-13-1992

Reported in : AIR1992SC1168; 1993(1)ALT(Cri)258; 1992(2)BLJR1309; [1992]75CompCas722(SC); (1992)2CompLJ195(SC); 1992CriLJ1523; 1992(1)Crimes1215(SC); JT1992(2)SC436; (1992)102PLR433; 199

..... question which arises for determination in these appeals is whether it was permissible to launch a prosecution under sub-section (1) of section 17 of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 (hereinafter called the 'the act') against the directors and managers of public limited companies, namely, m/s. lipton india limited and m/s. hindustan lever limited, for the commission of the ..... at the shamnagar factory and in that capacity he was entitled to exercise all such powers and take all such steps as considered necessary or expedient to prevent the commission of any offence under the act. as required by rule 12b, a nomination in form viii was sent by his company to the local (health) authority, bhatpara municipality and he had signed ..... to authorise any of its directors or managers to exercise all such powers and take all such steps as may be necessary or expedient to prevent the commission by the company of any offence under the act. it further empowers the company to give notice to the local (health) authority in the prescribed form that it has nominated a director or manager ..... employed mainly in a managerial or supervisory capacity) to exercise all such powers and take all such steps as may be necessary or expedient to prevent the commission by the company of any offence under this act and may give notice to the local (health) authority, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, that it has nominated such .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 15 1992 (SC)

Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-15-1992

Reported in : AIR1993SC1375; 1993CriLJ1804; 1992(3)Crimes853(SC); 1992(3)SCALE59; 1993Supp(2)SCC544

..... about mid-night. it was not, therefore, possible to identify the accused persons including the appellant, ranjit singh. the learned counsel has also contended that the high court erred in holding that since ranjit singh was known to some of the eye-witnesses from before, they had identified him at the time of incident. the learned counsel has also contended that ..... orderg.n. ray, j.1. this appeal has been preferred under section 2(a) of the supreme court (enlargement of criminal appellate jurisdiction) act, 1970 against the judgment and order dated october 16, 1981 passed by the high court of judicature of bombay at aurangabad in criminal appeal no. 498 of 1978. the said .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 1992 (HC)

Gram Panchayat Vs. Collector and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-19-1992

Reported in : (1993)104PLR43

..... of the land to entitle it to seek ejectment. it is also averred that the provisions of the village common lands (regulations) act, 1961 are not applicable to the lands reserved under section 18 of the east punjab holding (consolidation) and prevention of fragmentation act, 1949. on merits it is pleaded that the gram panchayat is not the owner of the land as the same was reserved during ..... consolidation operations and is described as 'shamlat deh hamb hisas paimana haqiat'. on account of entries in the revenue records, it is pleaded that ..... representative capacity. mr. r. s. mittal, senior advocate appearing for the petitioner rightly contends that to the extent rule 16 militates against section 15 (2)(h) of the act, the same cannot hold the field and to that extent ...... it has to be held invalid. it is no doubt true that rules are made with regard to matters so spelled out in ..... the pivotal question between the parties as to whether the land in. question comes within the definition of shamilat deh as provided under section 2 (g) of the punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1961 or the same comes under the exceptions provided under the said section. on the other hand, the chapter was closed by simply observing that jyoti ram had .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 1992 (HC)

G.J. Kanga and anr. Vs. S.S. Basha

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-18-1992

Reported in : 1992(3)BomCR582; (1993)95BOMLR632

..... case the dy. municipal commissioner. in the case of harbhajan singh v. karam singh, reported in : [1966]1scr817 , the supreme court was concerned with the provisions of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act. the question which was posed before the supreme court was whether an order made under section 42 could be reviewed by the state government. this is what the supreme ..... court has held :'there is no provision in the act granting express power of review to the state government with regard to an order made under section 42 of the act. ..... application of harbhajan singh under section 42 of the act. it follows therefore that the order of the director dated 29th august ..... in the absence of any such express power, it is manifest that the director, consolidation of holdings, cannot review his previous order of 3rd april, 1958 dismissing the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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