Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Year: 1997 Page 1 of about 15 results (0.116 seconds)

Nov 01 1997 (HC)

Umed Singh Vs. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and o ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-01-1997

Reported in : 69(1997)DLT957

..... estate right holder, in village bamnolli, new delhi, has sought the quashing of notification issued by respondent no. 2 under the provisions of east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, as applicable to delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the consolidation act') and the consolidation of holding proceedings, which are in progress in village bamnolli; to restrain respondents i and 2 from continuing the proceedings and affecting the re-partition ..... under section 21 of the act and to quash rule 6 of the delhi holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1959, as amended by the (amendment) rules, 1996 ..... after the issuance of the notification under section 507 of the delhi municipal corporation act and the so called notification under section 12 of the delhi development act. (9) rule 6 of the delhi holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1956 stood amended by rule 4 of the delhi holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) (amendment) rules, 1996 by virtue of which clause (j)of the principal rules stood .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 1997 (HC)

Gram Panchayat Vs. the Director Consolidation of Holdings and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-01-1997

Reported in : (1998)118PLR475

..... 5.8.1996, copy annexure p-1 to the writ petition, vide which the petition filed under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 was accepted and the case was remanded to the consolidation officer, nabha for partition and redistribution of land comprised in khewat no. 42 khatauni no. 90 to 91 of jamabandi 1991-92, amongst the right holders of village ..... -94 and belongs to the gram panchayat but the proprietors of the village filed a petition under section 42 of the consolidation act for distribution of the same. the gram panchayat had proved that the land belongs to it but the director consolidation vide order dated 5.8.1996 ordered the partition of land in favour of proprietors of the village.3. learned ..... demand was made for redistribution of land among the khewatdars under section 14(2) of the act and as such the land could not be partitioned. he further contends that if any person is aggrieved by the repartition could file objection within 15 days before the consolidation officer but no objection were ever filed. he further contends that the land in favour ..... the column of possession, the land in question was shown under the possession of maqbooja malkan. it has further been stated in the written statement that at the time of consolidation scheme, no consent of the proprietors of the village was ever obtained and there is no provision in the scheme that the joint khatas will not be partitioned.7. learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 1997 (HC)

Gram Panchayat of Village Chandu Khurd Vs. Director, Consolidation of ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-17-1997

Reported in : (1997)117PLR623

..... the entries are to the effect that the land in question is 'shamlat deh.'2. learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that it is not for the authorities under the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act, 1948 to determine whether the land in question is shamlat deh land or not and it is only for the authorities under the ..... punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1961, who can determine the aforesaid question. in the present case the director consolidation vide impugned order dated 25.7.1996 held that in fact it is the present respondents who are the ..... shamlat deh or not was set aside, we allow this writ petition and quash the order of the director, consolidation dated 25.7.1996.3. we direct the private respondents herein to approach before the collector, patiala, under the punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1961, if so advised, within one month from today with an application for the relief which they claimed ..... before the director of consolidation and if any such application is filed within the aforesaid period, it will be deemed to have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 1997 (HC)

Harbans Singh and ors. Vs. Director Consolidation of Holdings and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-04-1997

Reported in : (1997)117PLR639

..... , 1982 petitioners filed this writ petition.2. one chhano daughter of harke filed an application under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 for setting aside the orders passed by the settlement officer, consolidation dated 20.11.1973 and the consolidation officer dated 19.10.1974 on the ground that the said orders came to bepassed in her absence. the additional director ..... , consolidation vide impugned order came to the conclusion that chhano, the third respondent was not a party to the previous proceedings and ..... .3. it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the orders of settlement officer and consolidation officer dated 20.11.1973 and 19.10.1974 became final and the third respondent filed this application under section 42 of the act after a lapse of seven years i.e. on 6.11.1981 and that her mother and brother ..... were parties to the earlier proceedings and the earlier orders were passed in their presence and, therefore, there was no ground to set aside the order of the consolidation officer dated 19.10.1974 and, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 1997 (HC)

Devinder Nath Vs. Director Consolidation of Holdings and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-30-1997

Reported in : (1997)116PLR463

..... the same on 19.5.1967. aggrieved against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short, the 'act'). respondent no. 1 vide order dated 28.5.1968, remanded the case for carving out the abadi plots. however, respondent no. 2 vide order ..... the legality and validity of order dated 4.10.1975 (ann.p.3), passed by the consolidation officer, jalandhar, and order dated 21.2.1980 (ann.p.4), passed by additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, chandigarh, have been challenged.2. during the consolidation proceedings, the petitioner was allotted abadi plot in accordance with the scheme. one telu ram was ..... which he again declined the objections and stuck to his previous decision. aggrieved against this order, the petitioner filed a petition under section 42 of the act before the director consolidation who dismissed the same vide order dated 21.2.1980 (ann.p.4).3. respondents nos. 3 to 5 filed a written statement and pleaded that ..... also allotted a plot. aggrieved against this, the petitioner filed an objection petition before the consolidation officer, garhshankar, respondent no. 2 who dismissed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 1997 (HC)

Kirpal Singh Alias Pal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-04-1997

Reported in : (1998)118PLR665

..... august 31,1982.2. respondent no. 3 filed an application before the settlement officer under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the act) for providing khal to irrigate his land in killa no. 64/26. that application was dismissed by the settlement officer vide his order dated december 21, 1980, on the ground ..... to approach the authorities under the provisions of northern india canal and drainage act. the same view was also taken in mukand singh v. additional director, consolidation of holdings and anr., 1992 p.lj. 247. following the above authorities, i also held in manjit singh and ors. v. state of punjab, (1996-2)113 p.l.r. 683 that the application to change ..... respondent no. 3 filed an application before the additional director under section 42, of the act for providing khal. in that application, the additional director, consolidation of holdings, by his order dated september 13, 1979, directed the consolidation officer to examine if there was any provision in the consolidation scheme providing khal to irrigate the lands of respondent no. 3 and if such a ..... the water course under section 42 of the act is not maintainable and the proper remedy for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 14 1997 (SC)

Behari Kunj Sahkari Awas Samiti and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Othe ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-14-1997

Reported in : AIR1997SC3123; JT1997(7)SC450; RLW1997(3)SC384; 1997(5)SCALE517; (1997)7SCC37; [1997]Supp3SCR460; 1997(2)LC583(SC)

..... bench of this court speaking through sarkar, j., for the majority had to consider whether the appellate jurisdiction conferred on the state government under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, could be invoked for challenging the order passed by a delegate of the powers of the state who as a delegate had exercised the very same jurisdiction under ..... was approved by the assistant custodian general as delegate of the custodian general must be treated to be an order which had got imprimatur of the custodian general himself acting through his delegate. once that happened the moot question arises whether such an order can be revised by the custodian general in exercise of his revisional powers under section ..... together by a division bench of the high court and by the impugned judgment, the division bench took the view that the revisional jurisdiction under section 27 of the act could be exercised by the custodian general against the order of the first authority, namely, the custodian and consequently, the proceedings in revision were remanded for fresh decision ..... order reads as under:application for substitution allowed.issue notice limited to the question of the interpretation of section 27 read with section 55 of the administration of evacuee property act, 1950, returnable on december 6, 1996 indicating that the matters may be finally disposed of on the miscellaneous stage itself.no stay.3. consequently, we will be concerned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 03 1997 (SC)

Gram Panchayat, Kakran Vs. Addl. Director of Consolidation and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-03-1997

Reported in : JT1997(8)SC430; 1997(6)SCALE382; (1997)8SCC484; [1997]Supp4SCR442

1. special leave granted.2.the appellant is gram panchayat of village kakran. in consolidation proceedings which took place in the year 1956 under the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act 1948, the net entitlement of sangha singh, father of the 2nd respondent was held to be of the value of 152-14-9 pai and after making deduction of the ..... 2nd respondent. the writ petition filed by the present appellant-gram panchayat has been dismissed. hence the present appeal has been filed before us.3. rule 18 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949 prescribes that an application under section 42 shall be made within six months of the date of the order against which it is filed. under the ..... cause for not making the application within such period. the 2nd respondent has relied upon a decision of the full bench of the punjab & haryana high court in the case of jatgtar singh v. additional director, consolidation of holdings, jalandar . in this decision the high court had held that the period prescribed under rule 18 will apply only in respect of ..... orders which are passed under the act and will have no application to a scheme which is framed or repartition which has been effected under the act.4. this, however, cannot be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1997 (HC)

Gram Panchayat Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-03-1997

Reported in : (1997)116PLR627

..... 1. the gram panchayat, khairpur, filed this writ petition to quash the order of the additional director, consolidation, punjab dated 24.9.1982.2. the second respondent filed an application before the additional director under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter called the 'act') for repartition of the land. to that application filed by the second respondent, sahi ram and hari ..... ram were parties. the consolidation officer came to the conclusion that a repartition took place earlier in march, 1964 and the ..... disputed land was with the respondent named in the petition and the petitioner had no case vis-a-vis the respondents in the application, but curiously the additional director, consolidation, in his order observed as follows:-'however the gram panchayat of the village has no objection to the grant of land to the petitioner from the land of the ..... contrary to the facts and law and, therefore, is liable to be set aside.4. the writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the order of the additional director, consolidation, punjab, dated 24.9.1982 is hereby set aside. however, there will be no order as to costs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 1997 (HC)

Gram Panchayat Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings and ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-17-1997

Reported in : (1998)119PLR631

..... singh should pursue alternate remedy and the gram panchayat shall not take any objection as to limitation. baldev singh also filed petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 before the respondent no. 1. he took this plea in that petition that he was in possession of the land in dispute since prior to 1950 and ..... the gram panchayat but after surrendering possession to the gram panchayat. petition filed by baldev singh under section 42 of the act, 1948 suffered from inordinate delay inasmuch as it was filed in the year 1994 when the consolidation proceedings had taken place in 1959-60. on this short/ground the respondent no. 1 should have dismissed that petition. ..... 1996. facts are taken out of cwp no. 804 of 1996 titled gram panchayat, billpur, tehsil and district kapurthala v. additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, jalandhar.2. vide order annexure p4, additional director consolidation of holdings, punjab, jalandhar-respondent no. 1 ordered that baldev singh-respondent no. 2 shall remain tenant on the khasra numbers mentioned in the record under ..... 11 of the act, 1961 regarding unauthorised possession. civil suit was dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction.5. in cwp no. 8609 of 1996, baldev singh has prayed for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to hold auction of the land fixed for 8.6.1996 as the additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, jalandhar vide order .....

Tag this Judgment!


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