Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 22 results (0.055 seconds)

Sep 10 2004 (HC)

Balbir Singh and ors. Vs. Financial Commissioner and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Sep-10-2004

Reported in : 114(2004)DLT655; 2004(77)DRJ525; (2005)139PLR16

..... the ground that counsel was not heard on 19.8.2004. i had dismissed the said cm.9. consolidation commenced in village karala with the issuance of a notification under section 14(1) of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention and fragmentation) act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the consolidation act.10. as per the averments made in the petition, 10411 bigha and 8 biswa of land valued ..... area.14. since petitioner no.1, his brothers and kapoor singh were not given possession of the plots allotted, they filed a revision petition under section 42 of the consolidation act before the financial commissioner. revision petition was registered as case no.290/83-ca. vide order dated 2.2.1984 the revision petition was disposed of with a direction ..... pride.'5. land comprised in killa no.257 in village karala admittedly being a village pond and vested in the gaon sabha was withdrawn from the gaon sabha during consolidation proceedings and allotted to the petitioners. this allotment stands cancelled by the financial commissioner vide order dated 11.11.1986, which order stands impugned in the present proceedings.6 ..... standi since it is within the competence of authority under section 42 of the act to what the interest of the persons on common land.20. quashing the order passed by the consolidation officer, matter was remanded with the following direction:-'case is remanded to the learned consolidation officer with the directions that first he should ascertain from the records whether .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 2004 (HC)

Gram Panchayat of Village Issi Vs. Director, Consolidation of Holdings ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-28-2004

Reported in : (2004)138PLR753

..... (for short, 'the act') for making good the alleged deficiency to the extent of one rupee and eight annas by making the follow- ing averments ..... respondent nos.2 and 3, who had participated in the consolidated proceedings, did not raise any objection or questioned the scheme till they filed a petition in 1982 under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 ..... 1. this petition is directed against orders dated 1.10.1982 (annexure p4) passed by additional director, consolidation of holdings punjab and 23.11.1984 (annexure p12) passed by director, consolidation of holdings, punjab (respondent no.l).2. the facts:-the consolidation scheme of village issi, tehsil dhuri, district sangrur was pre- pared, published and finalised in 1956. ..... of the petition filed by it under section 42 of the act, an application dated 23. i 1,1984 (annexure pll) was also filed on behalf of the petitioner for summoning the file of the case decided by additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab. however, without considering the averments contained in the petition filed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 2004 (HC)

Manushya Swajati Kalyan Dharam Samaj Society Vs. Gram Panchayat of Vil ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-28-2004

Reported in : (2005)139PLR378

..... of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short, 'consolidation act'), then there must have been some proof that the gram panchayat was managing the same. he further submitted that in the revenue record i.e. copy ..... to manage the suit land and to dispossess the plaintiff (appellant herein) therefrom in exercise of the powers vested in it under rule 16(ii) of the punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949 in due course of law.2. briefly stated, the facts are that the plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit claiming itself to be owner in ..... act was not maintainable and the findings recorded by the collector are void. in that situation, only the civil court was competent to decide the title of the parties. he further submitted that even if the management of the land was with the gram panchayat as per the provisions of section 16-c read with section 16(ii) of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention ..... under section 2(6) of the act.15. the learned additional district judge, gurgaon, has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondent-gram panchayat is competent to manage the suit land and to dispossess the plaintiff-appellant in exercise of the powers vested under rule 16(ii) of the punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949.in view of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 2004 (HC)

Smt. Gayatri Jain, P.C.S. Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-20-2004

Reported in : (2005)140PLR225

..... .p.c. and sections 13(1)(a)(d), 13(2) of prevention of corruption act, 1988, registered with vigilance bureau, patiala.2. in the year 1997, the petitioner was posted as additional director consolidation, punjab, empowered with powers of the state government under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the consolidation act). on 24.6.1977, when she was so posted, the ..... proprietors of village sekhon majra filed a petition under section 42 of the consolidation act against the gram panchayat for re-distribution of the ..... bachat land. their claim was that during the consolidation, the department of consolidation imposed pro rate cut on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 2004 (HC)

Rishi Parkash and ors. Vs. Director Consolidation of Holdings and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-20-2004

Reported in : (2004)137PLR501

..... in the present appeal. the passage aforesaid was used by the proprietors of the village.3. after almost 40 years of finalisation of consolidation proceedings, the appellants filed application dated 3.2.1993 under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short, 'the act') before director of holdings, haryana (respondent no. 1) with the prayer that they may be provided passage to their ..... holdings. the same was accepted by respondent no. 1 vide order dated 26.8.1993 and the matter was sent to settlement officer (consolidation), rohtak, with the direction that passage be ..... .t. 1997(8) s.c. 430 and it has been held that even though, the limitation prescribed in rule 10 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949 is not applicable to an application filed under section 42 of the act, the competent authority cannot entertain an application/petition filed under that section after long lapse of time. the proposition of law laid .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 2004 (HC)

Dalbara Singh and anr. Vs. the Additional Director, Consolidation of H ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-23-2004

Reported in : (2004)137PLR603a

..... order dated 24.5.1984, annexure p1 passed by the additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab in petition no. 109 of 1983 filed by respondent no. 2-raunqi ram under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short, 'the act').2. brief facts are that consolidation proceedings in village rampur, tehsil phillaur, district jullundur took place in ..... the year 1952-53. scheme under' section 20 of the act was formulated and in accordance therewith, repartition was finalised in the ..... s.c. 430 and it has been held that even though the limitation prescribed in rule 18 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949 is not applicable to an application filed under section 42 of the act, the competent authority cannot entertain an application/petition filed under that section after long lapse of time. the ..... holdings, punjab on the following grounds:-(a) firstly, that the consolidation in the village took place in the year 1952-53, and it is after a lapse of 30 years that petition under section 42 of the act had been filed by respondent no. 2. the said petition was, therefore, barred by limitation;(b) secondly, raunki .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 2004 (HC)

Bachittar Singh and ors. Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Hol ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-21-2004

Reported in : (2004)137PLR673

..... 3 to 5 of the petitioner are denied as wrong. the petitioners were impleaded as parties to the petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') and were duly served and mukhtiar singh petitioner was present at the time of hearing and was heard by the additional director before the passing ..... . this is a petition for quashing order dated 16.12.1983 (annexure p-2) vide which additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab allowed the petition filed by respondent no. 2 under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short 'the act').2. the main ground on which the petitioners have challenged the impugned order is that they were not served with ..... quashed only on that ground.for the reason mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed and order annexure p2is quashed with the direction to additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab to decide the application of respondent no. 2 afresh. the parties are directed to appear before the additional director concerned on 16.2.2004. ..... --s/o sobha singh 0-418x22. jumia mushtarka nil shown as areamalkan withdrawn at sr.no. 1file be consigned to the record room. announced.'sd/-addl. director,consolidation of holdings, pb. chandigarh.'7. in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, it has been averred that the petitioners were duly served and one mukhtiar .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 20 2004 (HC)

Ajit Singh and ors. Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-20-2004

Reported in : (2004)138PLR360

..... byajit singh, gurdial singh and daljit singh etc. passed by the additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, respondent no. 1 under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act), 1948 (for short 'the act').2. brief facts are that in accordance with the scheme prepared under section 20 of the act, repartition of the village kotkapur was carried out in the year 1964-65. ..... the proposition of law settled by this court and the supreme court in the gram panchayat village kanonda v. director consolidation of holdings and ors., 1990 p.l.j. 213 that under rule 18 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949,bar of limitation of six months is applicable only to orders and it does not apply to ..... know of order, annexure p-2, the petitioners preferred a petition for setting aside the said order. the petition was however, dismissed by the ad ditional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab vide order dated 11.10.1984, an nexure p-3. this is how, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the orders annexures p-2 ..... points c to d the petitioner no. 9 whose land falls between points d and e were also impleaded as respondents in the revision petition. the additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, however, notwith standing the fact the petitioners were not impleaded as respondents nor were heard, ac cepted the revision petition preferred by respondent no. 2, vide .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 2004 (HC)

Jit Singh and ors. Vs. Joint Development Commissioner and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-19-2004

Reported in : (2004)137PLR438

..... deh hasab rasad rakba malkiat in possession of the proprietors of the village. petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 1948') was filed by some of the respondents before the additional director, consolidation seeking partition of the land alleging the same to be the land belonging to the right holders and not ..... of hon'ble supreme court in gram panchayat nurpur v. state of punjab, (1997-2)116 p.l.r. 694 (s.c.), gram panchayat village sidh v. additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, 1997(3) r.c.r. (civil) 491, to contend that the authorities constituted under the act of 1948 had no jurisdiction to determine the question of title or in other ..... words, as to whether the land belonged to the gram panchayat under the provisions of the act of 1961 or the proprietors of the ..... cases (supra), learned single judge had set aside the orders passed by the authorities constituted under the act of 1948, even though there was an earlier litigation between the parties upto hon'ble supreme court up-holding the orders passed by the director consolidation, a division bench of this court in letters patent appeal bearing no. 1059 of 1999 wherein, one .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 2004 (HC)

Sh. Hukum Chand and ors. Vs. the Financial Commissioner and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-17-2004

Reported in : 111(2004)DLT21; 2004(74)DRJ509

..... .2002, passed by the financial commissioner, respondent no.1 in revision and orders of the consolidation officer dated 21.5.2002 passed under section 43-a of east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the act) and 28.9.1984 passed by consolidation officer of amended allotments in consolidation proceedings.3. the facts giving rise to the present petition insofar as they are relevant for ..... its disposal may be noticed:(i) petitioners and respondent nos.4 to 7 are residents of village khaira, delhi. they claim that they hold agricultural ..... . mr.v.p.singh's contention is that the no notice of the proceedings was served on the petitioners. the procedure, as prescribed under rule 3 of the delhi holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1959 was not followed. the rules contemplate and provide for personal service. in this case, it is urged by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, leave aside .....

Tag this Judgment!


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