Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Year: 1999 Page 1 of about 9 results (0.075 seconds)

Sep 01 1999 (HC)

Amar Singh (Died) Through His Lrs. and ors. Vs. the Director, Consolid ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-01-1999

Reported in : (2000)124PLR82

..... 4 was not satisfied with the major portion allotted to him and therefore, filed a petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, (in short the act) before the additional director, consolidation of holdings, and claimed that he be given chahi land in square no. 2, 3, 4, 5 50/24 and 25. ..... and 4 and allotted area falling in killa no. 6/5/2 and 1/25/2 to respondents 3 and 4. in my view, the director consolidation, namely, respondent no. 1 committed a gross illegality in reviewing earlier order dated 12.5.1977. as noticed earlier, vide order dated 12.5. ..... kotha along with the pipe, then no action be taken in that regard. petition under section 42 of the act was thus, rejected except the direction in regard to tubewell. on remand, the consolidation officer inspected the site on 8.4.1987 in the presence of the parties and their statements were also ..... 2.3. respondent no. 3 and 4 still filed a petition under section 42 of the act and notice of the same was given to the writ petitioners who brought to the notice of the director consolidation that the matter between the parties has already become final and no further directions are required ..... order, annexure p-3, passed by the director, consolidation of holdings, haryana, vide which land has been taken away from the area of the petitioners and given to respondents 3 and 4.2. in brief, the facts are that as a result of consolidation in the village, a major area belonging to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 22 1999 (HC)

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

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-22-1999

Reported in : (2000)124PLR804

..... order dated 19.1.1996 came to be passed on the application filed by right-holders, namely respondents no. 2 to 56 of village under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the act). the right-holders contended that there was a khewat in the name of shamilat deh hasab zar khewat and during ..... consolidation, instead of partitioning this land, the same was kept joint. they further contended that they being proprietors of the village, this land is required to be partitioned among them ..... was made to a division bench judgment of this court in bhagwan singh and ors. v. the director, consolidation of holdings, punjab and ors., 1997(1) p.l.j. 458. it is also contended that for filing application under section 42 of the act, no limitation is prescribed and, therefore, the additional director committed no illegality in entertaining the application. in bhagwan ..... supreme court have held that an application under section 42 of the act is not to be entertained if filed after gross delay. division bench in gram panchayat village surajpur's case (supra) quashed similar order passed by the director, consolidation of holdings. in gram panchayat nurpur v. state of punjab and ors., their lordships of the supreme court have held that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 1999 (HC)

Gram Panchayat of Village Mahadian and anr. Vs. the Additional Directo ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-12-1999

Reported in : (1999)123PLR632

..... 6.1996, annexure p-2 came to be passed on the application filed by the right-holders of the village under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the act). the right-holders contended that there was a khewat in the name of shamlat deh hasab hisas mudarja sajra hasab which is under the ..... possession of maqbooza malkan. they contended that during consolidation, instead of partitioning this land, the same was kept joint and they being proprietors of the village, this ..... try the petition. it contended that the question of title could only be decided by the collector under the punjab village common lands (regulations) act, 1961. despite the objections raised by the gram panchayat, the additional director, consolidation of holdings allowed the application filed by the right-holders and vide order dated 5.6.1996, annexure p-2 directed that ..... supra), their lordships of the supreme court held that the additional director, consolidation of holdings has no authority to go into the question whether the land in dispute is shamilat deh or not as the same can only be decided by authorities under the punjab village common land (regulation) act, 1961. in the said case before the supreme court, jamabandi entries .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 1999 (HC)

Balkar Singh and ors. Vs. Director, Land Records and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-21-1999

Reported in : (2000)125PLR111

..... , challenge is to order dated 24.6.1992, annexure p-3 vide which director, land records, punjab, jalandhar (for short the director) in exercise of powers under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the act), has amended the scheme and ordered partition of land measuring 227 kanals 5 marlas situated in village patti ..... multani, tehsil jagraon, district ludhiana among the right-holders as per their shares.4. it is the case of the petitioners that the consolidation of holdings in the ..... in panchayat and will not be partitioned, respondent no.2 to 5 filed an application under section 42 of the act in february 1992 stating therein mat excessive cut has been imposed on their land holdings during consolidation proceedings and the unutilised land was required to be partitioned amongst them. the director allowed the application and ordered ..... village patti multani were held in the year 1953-54 under the provisions of the act. further according to the petitioners, a scheme was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 1999 (HC)

Kali Ram Vs. Director, Consolidation of Holdings and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-01-1999

Reported in : (2000)124PLR74

..... 20.10.1994 whereby application dated 13.5.1992 filed by the petitioner under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (in short the act) has been dismissed by the joint secretary, haryana government, exercising the powers of director under section 42 of the act. it is the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 2.4.1975. additional director ordered ..... kurrah because it is over-assessed. according to the petitioner, the matter was remanded to the settlement officer, consolidation of holdings, for making necessary correction. it is further the case of the petitioner that he applied a number of times to the director, consolidation of holdings, that compliance of order dated 2.4.1975 has not been made by making changes in accordance with ..... the said order, but the additional director dismissed the application. it is further the case of petitioner that vide application dated 13.5.1992, again a prayer was made to the director for issuance of directions to the consolidation authorities ..... this court and certain directions were given by this court on 10.2.1986. in compliance with the directions given by this court, the matter was determined by the consolidation officer, and order dated 17/19.5.1987 was passed. feeling aggrieved of the said order, petitioner filed an application under section 42 of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 1999 (HC)

Ram Batra and ors. Vs. Financial Commissioner, Delhi and Others.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Sep-17-1999

Reported in : 1999VAD(Delhi)954; 81(1999)DLT849; 2000(52)DRJ35

..... as under:- 'this is a revision petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation & prevention of fragmentation ) act, 1948, as extended to the union territory of delhi (called the act) against the part of the order dated 25.3.92 passed by shri v.p. yadav, consolidation officer, delhi in pursuance of the amended scheme of consolidation for extension of village abadi of village alipur whereby killa no. 28 ..... to 581. copy of the amended scheme is filed as annexure-ta to the writ petition and translated copy may be reproduced as under:- 'amendment of scheme section 36 east punjab holdings (consolidation & prevention of ragmentation) act, 1948 village alipur, delhi. order of lt. governor, delhi in regard to inclusion of area in phirni have been received. for rightholders, who have procured order of financial commissioner and ..... . 3. the facts which emerge from the reading of the petition are that consolidation proceedings started in village alipur, delhi under the provisions of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') in the year 1986 and the scheme of consolidation prepared under section 19 of the act by the consolidation officer was confirmed under section 20 by the settlement officer on 24th july .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 28 1999 (HC)

Municipal Committee Vs. Sikandar Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-28-1999

Reported in : (2000)124PLR228

..... as the case may be.provided that the land which vests in the panchayat under the punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1961, or the land, management and control of which vests in the panchayat under the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act, 1948, shall revert to the co- sharers and owners thereof.'15. this was the position ..... connect the khasra nos. by saying that this very land was earlier in the possession of his fore-fathers, the fact remains that he was holding this property as owner on the date of the institution of the suit and as such the first appellate court rightly decreed the entire suit ..... the capacity of a proprietor and the second point for determination would be whether this notification should be applied prospectively or retrospectively. if the plaintiff is holding the property in the capacity of an owner prior to 30.4.1976, how he could be divested of the same.16. the matter regarding ..... any title. the land in question was shamlat as given earlier. how the municipality clothed itself with title has not been shown to me. i hold that the plaintiff is its owner and is entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction sought. the appeal thus deserves to be accepted.'9. i ..... para-7 of the judgment reversed the part findings against the plaintiff and decided the entire issue no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff is not only in possession of the suit land but also is the owner of the suit land and the suit of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 19 1999 (HC)

Chanda Ram and ors. Vs. Madan Jha, the Financial Commissioner and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jul-19-1999

Reported in : 80(1999)DLT793

..... /c.o.(m)new delhi'5. smt. rajwati, respondent no. 8 challenged the above said order passed by the consolidation officer by filing revision petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation & prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 as applicable to delhi. her case was that she had purchased the land in killa no. 81/21 and 104/ ..... subsequent facts are stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the petition which may be reproduced as follows :'3. that inasmuch as the operation of consolidation of holdings was going on in the village respondents 3 to 5 got kila nos. 81 /21 (4 bighas 16 biswas) and 104/ 1/1 ..... all these facts in view. i come to the conclusion that this is a fit case deserving interference under section 42 of the act since the order of the consolidation officer is contrary to law, being passed without having any jurisdiction. in end result, the present revision stands allowed. order as ..... the declaration under section 85 of the delhi land reforms act was ordered. admittedly there was no notice by the consolidation officer to the petitioner. the learned counsel for the respondents wanted me to hold that the order of the consolidation officer is within his competence in terms of section 43- ..... a of the act. this is untrue. section 43-a deals with only clerical mistakes and not the changes in the allotment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 1999 (SC)

Lachhman Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Raja Ram Singh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-30-1999

Reported in : JT1999(2)SC491; 1999(2)SCALE331; (1999)3SCC517

..... thus bhumidhari right in respect of the lands in question were also covered by the same applying the principle underlying section 90 of the indian succession act to which we have adverted to, and there is no contrary intention expressed.8. the next question that arises for consideration is what is the ..... stands to reason in preference to that of the high court.5. in construing a will the principle enunciated in section 90 of the indian succession act is relevant. where a property is bequeathed in generic and may increase, diminish or otherwise change during the testator's life so that the description ..... share in the suit lands. the trial court, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, dismissed the suit filed under section 176 of the act. against that order an appeal was preferred before the additional commissioner, lucknow division, who held that the will did not include bhumidhari rights and after ..... be seen. it is not in dispute that under section 18 of the act arjun singh became bhumidhar of the lands in question. a bhumidhar is enabled under section 169 of the act to make a will and bequeath his holding or any part thereof and general order of succession provided under section 171 ..... is subject to section 169 of the act. the will executed by arjun singh, as far as the portion relevant .....

Tag this Judgment!


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