Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Year: 2003 Page 1 of about 15 results (0.045 seconds)

Jan 08 2003 (SC)

Mange Ram Vs. Financial Commissioner and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-08-2003

Reported in : AIR2003SC807; 2003(1)AWC667(SC); JT2003(1)SC135; 2003(1)SCALE66; (2003)2SCC1

..... in village sanoth was prepared and confirmed in the year 1975-76 under sections 19 and 20 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'). the respondents admittedly owned and possessed lands in the said village. the appellant claimed that his predecessor had trespassed on a portion of the land belonging to the respondents ..... of the appellant was rejected. this argument is again misplaced as it is factually not correct. in that other case of chander etc., they had been allotted land in the consolidation proceedings. delivery of possession was held up because of legal proceedings involving that very case. thus, the facts of the two cases are entirely different.5. looking from another ..... appellant cannot succeed.3. secondly, this appeal must fail on account of long delay and laches on the part of the appellant in approaching the authorities for relief. the consolidation proceedings in the village admittedly concluded in the year 1982. the appellant himself relies on a list dated 3rd july, 1982 for purposes of basing his claim to a piece ..... appellant made an application on 16th february, 1993 for being put in possession of the 5 biswas of land to which he claimed to be entitled to an encumbrancer. the consolidation officer however dismissed the application of the appellant vide order dated 10th november, 1993. the financial commissioner dismissed the revision petition against the said order on 4th march, 1994. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 2003 (HC)

Harbans Lal and ors. Vs. Financial Commissioner and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jul-31-2003

Reported in : 2003VAD(Delhi)355; 106(2003)DLT292; 2003(70)DRJ261

..... bamnoli, tehsil mehrauli whereby they had challenged the impugned order of the financial commissioner purported to have been passed in the exercise of his powers under section 42 of the east punjab holding (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (in short referred to as `the act'). the facts in short relevant for deciding this appeal are:-a notification under section 14 (i) of the ..... act was issued on 08th september, 1993, for carrying out consolidation proceedings in village bamnoli. the consolidation officer was appointed under the act on june 13, 1996. the consolidation officer initiated consolidation proceedings by issuing a notification on june 21, 1996 ..... . on june 26, 1996, advisory committee under the act was constituted to supervise the consolidation proceedings in the village. applications were invited from the residents of the village for allotment and exchange of land for different purposes. after evaluating different holdings in the village a draft consolidation scheme was announced on 26.11.1996. objections were invited from the residents .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 2003 (HC)

Prem Chand (Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs Vs. Additional Director ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-29-2003

Reported in : (2003)135PLR844

..... (respondent no. 1 herein), vide which an application filed by harbans singh (respondent no. 2 herein) under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to an 'the act') for correction of the mistake during the consolidation proceedings were allowed.2. in this case, the dispute is about khasra no. 98/15/1 total measuring one kanal, situated in village rahaun, tehsil ..... a scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made in the consolidation is challenged. rule 18 provided limitation only for petitions filed against orders passed under the act. this decision of the full bench of this court ..... the full bench decision of this court in sh. jagtra singh v. additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab and anr., (1984)86 p.l.r. 364 (f.b.), wherein it was held that bar of limitation of six months as provided for in rule 18 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation), rules, 1949 does not apply to those petitions in which legality or validity of .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 14 2003 (HC)

Pannu Ram and anr. Vs. the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdi ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-14-2003

Reported in : (2003)134PLR688

..... orders dated 12.01.1984 (annexure p-5) and 28.08.1987 (annexure p-7) passed by additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab (respondent no. 1 herein), vide which an application tiled under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') by respondent no. 4 was allowed and the review application for reviewing the order dated 12.01.1984 was ..... dismissed, respectively.2. in the instant case, the dispute is with regard to providing the passage to the hilly 'chak' of the petitioners by the consolidations authorities. in the year ..... order dated 12.1.1984, the same order should not have been interfered by the additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, after the expiry of period of limitation i.e. six months from the date of order, as provided under rule 18 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules'). in support of his contention, learned counsel for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 2003 (HC)

Surat Singh Vs. Additional Director and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-29-2003

Reported in : (2003)134PLR579

..... for quashing of impugned order dated august 27, 1985 (annexure p-4) passed by the additional director, consolidation, jalandhar.2. the petitioner has averred that consolidation of holdings under the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the act') took place in village mallian in the year 1960. the revenue estates of village mallian and that of ..... another village chohan are adjacent to each other.3. the petitioner moved a petition under section 42 of the act before the additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab ( ..... respondent no. 1) on his behalf and on behalf of others as he had a special power of attorney.4. respondent no. 1, vide his order dated may 2, 1982 (annexure p-1) remanded the case to the consolidation officer, jalandhar (respondent no ..... forward therein is that the land purchased in village chohancould not be adjusted against the claim of the petitioner in village mallian. the additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab vide his order dated august 27, 1985(annexure p-4), has failed to take into consideration this aspect that the registered saledeed was a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 2003 (HC)

Gram Panchayat Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-22-2003

Reported in : (2003)135PLR613

..... quashing the impugned order dated 16.1.1998 (annexure p3) passed by the additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab (respondent no. 2) vide which an application filed by some of the proprietors of the village under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') for partition of the land in question between the right holders of the village has been ..... allowed and the matter was remanded to the consolidation officer, jalandhar with the direction that he should re-partition the disputed land amongst ..... the right holder's of the village.2. the consolidation of holdings took place in village phull in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 2003 (HC)

Jaswinder Kaur and ors. Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation and ors ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-25-2003

Reported in : (2003)134PLR160

..... path. the challenge was also made on the ground that the respondents have not sought condonation of delay while filing a petition under section 42 of the east punjab holding (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act').4. we have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.5. counsel for the petitioners ..... has relied upon banarsi dass and ors. v. director consolidation of holdings haryana and ors., 1995 p.l.j. 314, smt. nasib kaur v. the additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, (1998-3 ..... of 'clerical mistake' was moved in the year 1999, and that too, without any application for condonation of delay, after 40 years of consolidation.8. the counsel for the respondents relied upon shri jagtar singh v. additional director consolidation of holdings, punjab and anr., (1984)86 p.l.r. 364 (f.b.) to contend that the period prescribed under rule 18 will apply only .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 25 2003 (HC)

Surjit Singh Vs. Amar Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-25-2003

Reported in : (2004)136PLR537

..... common parlance abadi deh is known as area within the lal lakir. according to the instruction for the guidance of the consolidation staff issued under the east punjab holdings (consolidation of prevention and fragmentation) act 1948, it is provided that in every village after ascertaining the shajras a provision shall be made for the passages and roads ..... would probably be better to refer such customs as 'usage' in order to distinguish them from customs which are governed by section 5, punjab laws act. it is a question of fact whether such a restriction on transfer is to be taken as an implied term when a site is ..... presumed that they have acquired full rights of ownership over their houses and the sites, which they occupy with complete power to alienate them. holding that there would always be presumption that the proprietary body intended the non-proprietor while making the grant of the property not to have ..... at the specified distance, which might be measured from abadi deh. rejecting that argument and referring to the afore-mentioned two paras from the punjab settlement manual, the division bench held as under:-'in other words, abadi deh would mean such land which is inhabited by villagers including ..... respect of abadi deh land, proof could have been furnished with regard to possession and ownership. paragraph 11 of appendix vii of the punjab settlement manual refers to the village sites popularly known as abadi-deh in the following words:-'the village site should be measured in one .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 2003 (HC)

Baldev Singh and ors. Vs. Gram Panchayat, Through Its Sarpanch and ors ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-22-2003

Reported in : (2003)134PLR797

..... the ownership of gram panchayat. thereafter, the petitioners along with some others proprietors filed a petition 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, punjab, for repartition of the said land among the proprietors. the aforesaid petition was allowed by the additional director ..... , consolidation, vide his order dated 28th march, 1996 (annexure p.1) and the aforesaid land was ordered to be re-distributed among the ..... of this court vide order dated 13th december, 1999 while holding that the additional director, consolidation has no jurisdiction in the matter regarding repartition of the bachat land and that authority now vested with the collector under the provisions of punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1961.3. the petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order ..... impleaded as party respondents in spite of the fact that the order dated 28th march, 1996 was passed by the additional director, consolidation, on their petition filed under section 42 of the act. therefore, the order dated 13th december, 1999 passed by this court is violative of the principles of natural justice. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 10 2003 (HC)

Bachna and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-10-2003

Reported in : (2003)135PLR208

..... c.w.p. no. 5877 of 1992. decided on march 13, 2003, has held that the land earmarked in the consolidation for any common purposes of the village in a consolidation scheme prepared under section 14 read with rules 5 and 7 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948, whether utilised or not, shall vest in the gram panchayat under the provisions of the ..... act. the validity of section 7 and proviso to sub-section (1) of section 13-b as substituted by the haryana act no. 9 of 1992, have been upheld.18. in view ..... petitioners from the land in question.3. in the petition, the petitioners have averred that they are the residents of village sunarian. tehsil thanesar. distt. kurukshetra. during the consolidation of holdings in village sunarina, a big chunk of land, including the land in question (which is nearly 47 acres of land), was reserved as charand for grazing of cattle by ..... in the nature of mandamus declaring the amended provisions of section 2(g)(4)(b), proviso to section 13(b) and section (7) of the punjab village common lands (regulation) haryana amendment act. 1992 (haryana act no. 9 of 1992). amendment of which has been made vide notification dated 11.2.1992, as ultra vires and unconstitutional and further to declare that .....

Tag this Judgment!


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