Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: east punjab holdings consolidation and prevention of fragmentation act 1948 Year: 2006 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.041 seconds)

Oct 14 2006 (HC)

Sahib Singh Vs. the Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Oct-14-2006

Reported in : 137(2007)DLT111; 2006(92)DRJ29

..... in the present writ petition. we may first examine the relevant provisions of the dlra and the consolidation act.the legal position under the consolidation act11. as regards the compulsory consolidation of agricultural holdings, the relevant statute is the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 ('consolidation act') under which schemes for consolidation of agricultural holdings are prepared and individual land holders are allowed to have their khatas joint or separate and also allotment ..... s. muralidhar, j.1. this writ petition seeks the quashing of (a) an order dated 20.4.2000 passed by the consolidation officer, respondent no. 3, under section 21(2) of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 ('consolidation act') and (b) and order dated 23.5.2000 passed by the financial commissioner, respondent no. 2, dismissing the petitioner's revision petition against the order of respondent no ..... of land at a price fixed in the scheme itself. the consolidation act is consistent with the dlra although the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2006 (HC)

Shiv Shyam Sales Enterprises. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Two ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-06-2006

Reported in : 2006(5)BomCR193

..... such order passed in appeal, a revision was not maintainable. the petitioner therein had objected to the scheme which was framed under the provisions of east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948. the said objection was rejected by the consolidation officer and therefore, the petitioner filed appeal under section 21[3] before the settlement officer, but that appeal also failed. the petitioner thereafter ..... in paragraph nos. 12 to 14 of the order. further the hon'ble apex court has concluded that the remedy of revision contemplated by section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, was only in relation to the original order passed by the officer. in the facts of the present case it is apparent that the bombay sales tax ..... . section 21[4] provided for appeal to state government. the petitioners appeal was heard by assistant director of consolidation of holdings, ambala to whom the governments powers and functions concerning the appeal had been delegated under section 41[1] of the act. the said officer allowed the appeal of petitioner, and one shri harisingh -respondent no. 2 before the hon ..... there was any mistake or error apparent on the face of record of this case to enable the respondent no. 3 to exercise jurisdiction under section 62 of the act. we hold that respondent no. 3 did not possess jurisdiction to deliver verdict on the said issue after expiry of two years from the date of his original order. 12 .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 2006 (HC)

Gurdial Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-31-2006

Reported in : (2006)144PLR276

..... . the gram panchayat-respondent no. 4 has filed written statement and the learned counsel appearing for it has stated that the addl. director, consolidations has passed an order under sections 18 and 23 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 on 13.10.1992 and had held that the gram panchayat is the owner of the land and that this order has assumed finality ..... 13.10.1992.9. in gram panchayat village sidh v. additional director, consolidation of holdings, punjab 1997(3) recent civil reports 491 and gram panchayat nurpur v. state of punjab (1997-2)116 i.l.r. 694 (s.c.), it has been held 'that the authorities constituted under the act of 1948 had no jurisdiction to determine the question of title or in other words, as ..... .(2) the procedure for deciding the suits under sub-section (1) shall be same as laid down in the code of code procedure, 1908 (act of 1908).we, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the director, consolidation had no authority to decide the question whether the land was shamlat deh and vested in the gram panchayat or not. consequently, the claim of ..... to whether the land belonged, to the gram panchayat under the provisions of the act of 1961 or the proprietors of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 2006 (HC)

Shri Tariff Singh Dabas Vs. Financial Commissioner and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-17-2006

Reported in : 129(2006)DLT565

..... land in khasra no. 38/6 and 38/7 belonging to the applicant may have to remain with him.15. in delhi, consolidation is governed by the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948. the procedure to be followed is that a draft scheme has to be notified under section 19 and objections invited. after considering the ..... objections, the same have to be disposed of and the draft scheme has to be confirmed under section 20. thereafter, repartition is effected under section 21.16. to give teeth to the act, delhi holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation ..... issued under section 14 of the east punjab (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act 1948 for consolidation of holdings in village kanjhawala. on 14.11.1996, draft consolidation scheme was announced by the consolidation officer in the village. after finalising the scheme, in the year 1998, repartition was carried out under section 21 of the said act. petitioner demanded a plot on ..... within the abadi is not the subject matter of any claim by any party.19. only question which arises for consideration is whether after including pre consolidation holding comprised in khasra no. 38/6 and 38/7 within the extended abadi, merely because said lands belonged to respondent no. 3, can he .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 2006 (HC)

Darshan Singh Vs. Kartar Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-19-2006

Reported in : (2006)144PLR719

..... singh and suba singh were allotted more land equivalent to 25 kanals 7 marlas then they are entitled to and the action was taken under section 42 of the east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragment) act, 1949 for making necessary entries in the revenue records and the director vide his memo no. pa/1813 camp dated 21.8.1979 advised to treat applications of defendants ..... -respondents as a petition under section 42 of the said act, and the plaintiff and suba singh were given notice and they appeared before the additional director of consolidation holdings of punjab, jullundur, and ..... it was held that the defendants-respondents stood allottees in their claim less to the extent of 13 kanals 6 marlas ordinary and that this was an omission on the part of the consolidation authorities and the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 08 2006 (HC)

Jayant S/O Vasantrao Dhole Vs. Additional Commissioner and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-08-2006

Reported in : 2007(1)ALLMR265; 2007(1)MhLj850

..... government to its subordinate and the subordinate in exercise of those powers passes order. the provisions of section 41(1) and section 42 of east punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) act, are considered by the hon'ble apex court in this light and the findings recorded in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 are important. ..... of present case, this court is not concerned with section 209 of the code. section 210 permits the person owning such immovable property or holding any interest therein by virtue of a title acquired before such sale, to apply to collector to have sale set aside within 30 days of ..... been set aside. he has also pointed out the judgment of the hon'ble apex court in the case of roop chand v. state of punjab reported at : air1963sc1503 , to contend that the entire auction proceedings conducted by the sub-divisional officer and orders if any passed by him under ..... application is that the society is under liquidation and hence as per provisions of sections 107 and 163(2) of the maharashtra co-operative societies act, 1960, no legal proceedings can lie or proceeded with against the society under liquidation. the application only mentions the size of land and ..... attack in revision was as the society was under liquidation, in view of provisions of sections 107 and 163(2) of maharashtra co-operative societies act, 1960, the property could not have been subjected to auction and that the auction consideration was inadequate.3. it appears that when these revision .....

Tag this Judgment!


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