Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Year: 1998 Page 1 of about 9 results (0.040 seconds)

May 05 1998 (HC)

Ujagar Singh and anr. Vs. Addl. Director, Consolidation of Holdings an ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-05-1998

Reported in : (1998)119PLR841

..... dated 14.10.1980 passed by the additional director consolidation of holdings, punjab, exercising the powers of director under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (herein after referred to as 1948 act).2. petitioners have averred that ujagar singh, petitioner filed petition under section 42 of the 1948 act against order dated 17.8.1974 of the consolidation officer. director consolidation instead of entertaining the petition directed ujagar singh ..... the petition under section 42 of the act and resultantly, set aside the order of the consolidation officer. hence, the present writ petition.3. upon notice, two sets of written statement have been ..... afresh. petitioners have further averred that before the consolidation officer, through the intervention of village panchayat, the matter was compromised and order dated 20.9.1979 was passed on the basis of the compromise. petitioners have contended that respondent no. 3 kanshi, filed petition under section 42 of the 1948 act before the additional director, consolidation, who vide order dated 14.10.1980 accepted .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 1998 (HC)

Smt. Nasib Kaur Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings and ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-23-1998

Reported in : (1998)120PLR713

..... 1. tara singh and maghar singh sons of sohan singh residents of village machhi ke, tehsil moga, district faridkot filed a petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short 'the act') claiming that they are the owners of certain khasra nos. in the village and that a path to the takes of the respondents therein, including the ..... the record and in that place, path in killa no. 41//12 and 13 may be provided which is already in existence. the additional director consolidation punjab in exercise of his powers under the act came to the conclusion that it was a fit case where spot can be inspected and a path which is in use on the spot should ..... , 1994 of the additional director remanding the case to the consolidation officer has become final and thus he finds no merit in the petition. ..... on receipt of the report from the kanungo, the consolidation of- ficer, mohali effected certain changes by his order dated 9th may, 1995, annexure p6. nasib kaur the petitioner in this petition aggrieved by the order of the consolidation officer filed a petition under section 42 of the act before the additional director consolidation, punjab. her petition was dismissed by order dated 12th july .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 1998 (HC)

Baldev Singh Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-28-1998

Reported in : (1998)120PLR785

..... dispute. the land in dispute vests in the petitioner and the central government. petitioner filed an application under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the act) before the additional director consolidation of holdings punjab with a prayer that the land in question be shown as the ownership of the petitioner or that of the central government and ..... by deputy commissioner- cum-district collector, kapurthala and order dated 26.4.1996 annexure p5 passed by the joint development commissioner (ird) punjab ignoring the order dated 2.11.1995 annexure p1 passed by additional director consolidation of holdings, punjab, jalandhar.2. facts of the case are that the land in dispute is comprised in khewat khatauni no. 130/213, khasra no ..... therefore, the order dated 2.11.1995 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. baldev singh, petitioner filed an application under section 42 of the act before the additional director, consolidation of holdings, who accepted the same and remanded the case vide order dated 2.11.1995 annexure p1 with the direction that 'he should thoroughly scrutinise the record to ..... . l73(3-10), 174(6-0), 181(3-4), 182(6-0), 183(6-2). the case of the petitioner is that prior to consolidation the land in dispute was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 1998 (HC)

Bela Ram Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-28-1998

Reported in : (1999)121PLR172

..... to 5 and tulsi ram respondent 6 filed a petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short 'the act') for providing a path to their tak. the petition was dismissed by the director consolidation by order dated 28.2.1991. ram ditta and tulsi ram challenged the order ..... by order dated 18.11.1993 and the parties were directed to appear before the director consolidation of holdings, punjab chandigarh on 6.12.1993. the matter was thereafter taken up by the director consolidation and he by his order dated 8.12.1995, annexure p-3 allowed the petition under ..... for the respondents has no objection if the passage as suggested is provided instead of the passage running at the spot provided by the consolidation authorities. learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to produce chander bhan on the next date of hearing with an affidavit to the effect ..... section 42 of the act filed by ram ditta and tulsi ram. the director consolidation came to the conclusion ..... that the petitioners are entitled to a path to their tak. he consequently remanded the matter to the consolidation officer mohali with a direction to provide a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1998 (HC)

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

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-30-1998

Reported in : (1999)121PLR655

orderv.k. jhanji, j.1. in this writ petition, the challenge is to order dated 31.10.1995 of the director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, jalandhar (annexure p3), whereby the land has been ordered to be partitioned on an application filed by the proprietors under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948.2. in civil miscellaneous application no. 17920 of 1998, prayer made is to quash the order of the director, consolidation of holdings, jalandhar on the ground that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the supreme court in gram panchayat kakran v. additional director of consolidation, 1997(2) p.lj. 375.3. after hearing the learned counsel and going through the record, i am of the view that prayer made in this application deserves to be allowed.4. the issue raised in the writ petition is squarely covered by the decisions of the supreme court rendered in gram panchayat, kakran (supra), a division bench of this court in gram panchayat, village surajpur v. director, consolidation of holdings and ors., civil writ petition no. 16747 of 1996 decided on november 4, 1997 and civil writ petition no. 11771 of 1996 decided on march 26, 1998. consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 31.10.1995 passed by the director, consolidation of holdings, jalandhar (annexure p3) shall stand quashed. c.m. shall also stand allowed.

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 1998 (HC)

Gram Panchayat Through Its Sarpanch Vs. Kanshi Ram and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-19-1998

Reported in : (1998)119PLR96

..... for eviction of unauthorised occupants from land reserved for common purposes under the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948'. section 2 defines the 'common purposes land' to mean 'the land reserved for the common purposes of a village under section 18 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation), act, 1948, the management and control whereof vests in the state government or the gram ..... panchayat under section 23-a of the aforesaid act.' section 3 provides that 'notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in ..... force, the provisions of the haryana public premises and land (eviction and rent recovery) act, 1972, ..... 1975 from the gram panchayat'. it was also claimed that the panchayat is the owner of the disputed land by virtue of the provisions of the punjab common lands regulation act, 1964. it has been the owner of the land since the year 1956. it is managing the land by leasing it out. the funds .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 27 1998 (SC)

State of Orissa and Others Vs. Commissioner of Land Records and Statem ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-27-1998

Reported in : AIR1998SC3067; JT1998(5)SC662; 1998(4)SCALE682; (1998)7SCC162; [1998]Supp1SCR130

..... . in that case, it was held by the majority that where the state government had, under section 41(1) of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, delegated its appellate powers vested in it under section 21(4) to an 'officer', an order passed by such an officer was an order passed by the state government ..... itself and 'not an order passed by any officer under this act' within section 42 and was not revisable by the state government. it was pointed out that for the ..... signed and sealed by the member. sub-clause (xi) of rule 9 permits the board of revenue to exercise the functions relating to the 'conducting survey and settlement and consolidation of holdings operations'. the regulations, which are called the board of revenue orissa regulations, 1963 refer to the procedure relating to presentation of review applications. thus the board of revenue has ..... statutes of different states operating in various parts of orissa, - namely, the bihar and orissa board of revenue act, 1913; the madras board of revenue act, 1894, the madras board of revenue regulation, 1803 and the orissa revenue commissioners' (regulation of functions) act, 1948. learned senior counsel for the respondents sri t.l. viswanatha iyer has taken us through the above four statutes .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 1998 (HC)

Faridabad Complex Administration Vs. Amitabh Adhar and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-03-1998

Reported in : (1999)121PLR208

..... drinking wells or ponds situated within the sabha area as defined in clause (mmm) of section 3 of the punjab gram panchayat act, 1952, excluding lands reserved for the common purposes of a village under section 18 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (east punjab act 50 of 1948), the management and control whereof vests in the state government under section 23-a of the aforesaid ..... act;)(4a) vacant land situate in abadi deh or gora deh not owned by any person;(5) lands in any village ..... wrongly been described in the column of ownership firstly in the name of panchayat and then in the name of faridabad complex administration.11. section 45 of the punjab land revenue act, 1887 provides that if any person considers himself aggrieved as to any right to which he is in possession by an entry in a record-of-rights, ..... suit land since the time of their forefathers and even prior to the year 1954 or when the punjab village common land (regulation) act, 1961 came into force. it is contended that the first appellate court clearly fell in error in holding that on cessation of gram panchayat, shamilat deh which had earlier vested in panchayat, had reverted in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 1998 (SC)

Kochu Maitheen Kannu Salim Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-05-1998

Reported in : 1998IIIAD(SC)294; AIR1998SC2852; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)610; 1998CriLJ2277; 1998(2)Crimes1(SC); JT1998(2)SC559; 1998(2)SCALE371; 1998(1)LC732(SC)

orderjudgement pronounced by nanavati, j.1.the appellant is challenging in this appeal his conviction by the high court under section 302 ipc. he was tried alongwith his brother jalal for committing the murder of their cousin - ummer in the sessions case no. 100/86 in the court of sessions judge, trivendrum but was acquitted on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.2. in order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined pw 2 - surenderan nair who stated that he was accompanying the deceased when the incident took place and that he had seen the assault made on the deceased by both the accused. his evidence was sought to be supported by the evidence of pws 3 and 4 and also by pws 7 and 8. the prosecution had also relied upon the recovery of mo3 - knife at the instance of the appellant. the trial court disbelieved the evidence of pw 2 as the supporting evidence was not found to be reliable and his own version was found inconsistent with the medical evidence. the trial court also held that as pw 2 had failed to explain all the injuries that were found on the person of the deceased it created a doubt regarding his having seen the incident evidence of pw 7 and pw 8 was discarded by the trial court as it was found to be inconsistent inter se. the trial court did not place any reliance on pw 1 who had not only not seen the incident but had denied to have made some statements contained in the fir lodged by him. the evidence of recovery of mo3 - knife was not .....

Tag this Judgment!


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