Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 22 results (0.060 seconds)

Mar 21 2005 (HC)

Gram Panchayat Vs. Director Panchayats and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-21-2005

Reported in : (2005)141PLR54

..... as follows:-'we have-tested the impugned order of the director of land records, punjab, against which writ petition was rejected by the high court, on the anvil of the punjab village common lands (regulations) act, 1960 and the rules framed thereunder as well as the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 and the rules framed thereunder. it is clear that the proprietorship of the land involved ..... , filed by the petitioner-gram panchayat, under section 11 of the punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1961 (for short herein after referred to as 'the act'), has been dismissed.2. the respondent-proprietors filed a petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short herein after referred to as 'the act of 1948'), for partition of shamlat land. vide order dated 4.7 ..... .1991 (annexure p-2), the said application was dismissed as withdrawn. thereafter, the respondent-proprietors filed another application under section 42 of the act of 1948. vide order dated 4.2.1992 (annexure .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 2005 (HC)

Gram Panchayat Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-07-2005

Reported in : (2005)140PLR273

..... gair mumkin school ground. surjit singh grewal (respondent no. 3), one of the proprietors of the village, filed a petition under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short the 'act') in the year 1993 before the additional director (consolidation), punjab, for distribution of the said land among the proprietors of the village. after hearing the counsel for the parties, the additional director ..... contended by mr. a.k. chopra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 38, that the provisions of 18 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949 (for short the rules) are not applicable to the proceedings initiated under section 42 of the act. in support of his contentions mr. a.k. chopra has placed reliance on gram panchayat guhla majri v. director ..... , (consolidation) punjab, held that the gram panchayat has no right to management of the land vide the impugned order dated 26.8.1996 (annexure p-3) ordered distribution .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 18 2005 (HC)

Gram Panchayat Through Its Sarpanch Dalip Singh Vs. the Director, Cons ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-18-2005

Reported in : (2005)141PLR276

..... of ceitiorari for quashing the order dated 6.8.1996 (annexure p-3), passed, by the director, consolidation or holdings, (respondent no. l) on the plea that the director consolidation or holdings, exercising powers under the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short herein after referred to as 'the consolidation act'), had no jurisdiction to decide whether the land, in dispute, vested or did not vest in the gram ..... right holders. consequently, the director consolidation officer, patiala for partition and distribution of the land in dispute amongst respondents no. 2 to 34, according to ..... short herein after referred to as '1961 act') and, therefore, did not vest in the gram panchayat. the mutation, sanctioned, without issuance of notice to the petitioner, had no legal value. it was also held that the land, prescribed in the schedule appended to the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short herein after referred to as 'consolidation act') and, therefore, should revert back to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 10 2005 (HC)

Sohna Ram Vs. the Director of Consolidation of Holdings and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-10-2005

Reported in : (2006)142PLR129

..... without waiting for its outcome, respondent no. 2 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 director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, praying therein that the revenue record, prepared by the consolidation authorities, be rectified, the entries, reflecting the petitioners as owners be set aside, as these ..... under section 42 of the act, was filed in 1985, after unexplained delay of 23 years and, therefore, should have been rejected by the director at the very outset. the limitation for impugning an order of the consolidation officer, is six months, as prescribed under rule 18 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949 (hereinafter ..... referred to as 'the rules).11. counsel for the respondent no. 2 contends that on 23.1.1961, respondent no. 2 was a minor. that being so, the director rightly held that the sale deed, did not bind respondent no. 2 as it was null and void. by setting aside the orders of the consolidation ..... way of the present writ petition, prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 7.11.1985 passed by the director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, chandigarh.2. a brief narrative of the facts would be appropriate.3. lal singh, respondent no. 2, was joint owner of 1/72 share .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 2005 (HC)

Gram Panchayat Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-27-2005

Reported in : (2005)141PLR6

..... .12,1991, passed by the director, land records, punjab exercising powers, under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (for short herein after referred to as 'the consolidation act').3. the petitioner-gram panchayat impugns the order of the director land records, punjab, passed while exercising powers of the director consolidation, on the plea that authorities under the consolidation act have no jurisdiction to decide whether the land ..... was to be paid to the gram panchayat, filed a petition under section 42 of the consolidation act before the director of land record, punjab, exercising the powers, under section 42 of the consolidation act, praying therein that during consolidation an excessive pro-rata cut had been applied to their land holding and, therefore, this excessive land could not have vested in the gram panchayat. vide order ..... has been satisfactorily explained and, therefore, the director land records, exercising powers under the consolidation act, committed no illegality in passing the impugned order.11. reliance for the above proposition is placed upon a full bench judgment of this court reported as sh. jagtar singh v. additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab and anr., 1984 p.l.j. 223 (f.b.). it is further contended .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 23 2005 (HC)

Piara Singh Vs. Additional Director C/H and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-23-2005

Reported in : (2005)140PLR675

..... proceedings that suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 1.11.1983. private respondents then approached respondent no. 1 under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (in short, the 'act) by contending that during consolidation proceedings, they were allotted land separately, as exclusive owners and they had wrongly been shown in subsequent records as co-sharers alongwith petitioner ..... khewat, as per their entitlement. they continued to be shown as such throughout. in the year, 1979, petitioner moved an application under section (i) of the punjab land revenue act, 1887, for partition of the joint khewat, before the revenue authorities. private respondents put up appearance and raised question of title. objection was dismissed. they went in ..... under challenge were passed.10. argument of counsel for petitioner, that the application under section 42 of the act was moved after a period of limitation, is also tenable.11. it is apparent from the records that consolidation proceedings came to an end in the year 1963. throughout, thereafter, the petitioner and the private respondents continued ..... has no jurisdiction whatsoever to ignore order passed by the competent civil court and also by the revenue authorities under the provisions of the punjab land revenue act, 1887. powers under section 42 of the act are very limited. respondent no. 1 has jurisdiction to interfere only if there exists some defect in effecting the repartition and not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 2005 (SC)

Bagirath Singh and anr. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-06-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC3672; JT2005(8)SC296; (2005)7SCC556

..... partition scheme framed by the consolidation authorities in respect of the three villages in question was not in accordance ..... and change of possession of land effected. 6. the consolidation scheme came to be challenged by one sultan singh before the deputy commissioner, karnal exercising powers under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the consolidation act'). invoking his revisional jurisdiction it was contended that re- ..... with law. in particular the petitioner challenged the propriety and legality of paragraph 11 of part vi of the consolidation ..... was sought to be challenged by some of the land holders by filing another application under section 42 of the consolidation act, the same was rejected by the director consolidation holding that the scheme framed in accordance with the direction of the high court and which was upheld by the high .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 2005 (HC)

Rachhpal Singh and anr. Vs. the Addl. Director Consolidation of Holdin ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-02-2005

Reported in : (2005)140PLR419

..... were incorporated in jamabandi for the year 1979-1980 (annexure p/2). still dissatisfied, respondent no. 2 again filed an application under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (in short, 'the act'), claiming following relief:-'(i) that the shape of his abadi plot be made rectangular.(ii) that he should be given area under his garden equivalent to his ..... observed that an additional director of consolidations, exercising powers of the government under section 42 of the act, was not empowered to review his earlier orders passed on merits, even though ..... established law, authorities, exercising powers under section 42 of the act, are quasi judicial in nature and have no power to review. it has been so held by a full bench of this court in deep chand and anr. v. additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab jullundur, and anr., (1964)66 the punjab law reporter 318.12. in that case, it was ..... with regard to an order made under section 42 of the act. in the absence of any such express power, it is manifest that the director, consolidation of holdings, cannot review his previous order of 3rd april, 1958 dismissing the application of harbhajan singh under section 42 of the act. it follows therefore that the order of the director dated 29th .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 2005 (HC)

Jangir Singh Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings and or ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-06-2005

Reported in : (2005)141PLR747

..... ' was irregular. the then additional director consolidation (respondent no. 1) vide order dated 8.9.1982 allowed that ..... minor changes in area allotted to them by the consolidation officer, vide order dated 24.9.1981 (annexure p/2). respondents, were still not satisfied, filed petition before the director, consolidation under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (in short, 'the act'). it was primary grouse that shape of their 'tak ..... petition and virtually reversed the order passed by the consolidation officer, by allotting the entire land, which was allotted to the petitioner by the consolidation ..... for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that while passing order annexure p/3 and reversing allotment of land made to the petitioner by the consolidation officer, respondent no. 1 has not given any reason whatsoever. perusal of the order indicates that the argument raised is perfectly justified. it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 2005 (HC)

Shri NaraIn Singh Vs. the Consolidation Officer and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Dec-14-2005

Reported in : 2006(86)DRJ617

..... that chahat means a tubewell operated by a bullock, whereas the word 'tubewell' is not defined in the east punjab holding (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 but is defined in the haryana canal and drainage act, 1974. section 2(13) of that act states that a tubewell means any device for lifting water from below the surface of the ground by mechanical means ..... the collector in an appeal filed by respondents no. 2 to 4 under section 21 (4) of the east punjab holding (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948. the petitioner's holding was in khasra no. 522 of village bamnoli, tehsil mehrauli, new delhi. consolidation proceedings were initiated and the petitioner was allotted land along with co-owners in a place different from the place ..... where the original land of the petitioner was located. the petitioner filed objections under section 21 (2) of the act ..... alleging that there was a tubewell in existence in his original holding and hence he should be allotted the land in the original holding. 4. under the consolidation scheme it was stated:- 'efforts shall be made to give the same plot to those .....

Tag this Judgment!


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