Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the punjab land reforms act 1972 Page 1 of about 6,759 results (0.266 seconds)

Nov 23 1995 (HC)

Jasbir Kaur and anr. Vs. Financial Commissioner (Appeals) and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1996)113PLR635

..... punjab, 1989 plj 95, wherein it is held as follows :-'now adverting to the facts of the case which are distinguishable from sher singh's ..... quash the orders of the respondents passed under the punjab land reforms act, 1972.2. the facts leading to the filing of these writ petition's may briefly be sum-marised as followsone smt. sant kaur was the owner of the land in dispute. she filed a declaration on form 'a' under the provisions of the punjab land reform act before the collector agrarian on 19.11.1973. the ..... that being so, the ratio of decision in ranjit ram's case (supra) clearly covers the case of the petitioners and, therefore, the land in hand of the present owners has necessarily to be assessed for computing the surplus area, if any, under the punjab land reforms act, 1972.'8. it is also useful to refer to the decision in karnail singh v. state of ..... the petitioners contended that there is a difference between the maharashtra agricultural land (ceiling on holdings) act and punjab land reforms act. according to him under the provisions of the maharashtra act the land vests in the state government whereas under the punjab act it vests only when the government took possession of the land and that the land has been utilised and till such time the landowner continues to be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 1996 (SC)

Ujjagar Singh (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Collector, Bhatinda and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)440; AIR1996SC2623; JT1996(6)SC713; 1996(5)SCALE512; (1996)5SCC14; [1996]Supp4SCR239

..... of the provisions made in sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 5 of the reforms act are procedural.' it may be mentioned that in the aforesaid judgment 'punjab law' refers to punjab security of land tenures act, 1953, 'pepsu law' refers to pepsu tenancy agricultural land act, 1955 and 'reforms act' refers to punjab land reforms act, 1972. according to us, the majority judgment of the full bench, has correctly appreciated the scope of ..... the three enactments referred to above. once the lands declared as surplus under the pepsu act did not vest in the state ..... sar sainwala, district bhatinda. out of which 218 kanals of land were declared surplus under the pepsu tenancy agricultural lands act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the pepsu act). however, the surplus land so declared was never utilised by the state government and remained in possession of the appellant.2. the punjab land reforms act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the punjab act) came into force with effect from 2nd april, 1973 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 07 1992 (HC)

Ajmer Singh Vs. the State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1992)102PLR576

..... ajmer singh died during the pendency of the present petition, the second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land having not been utilized, the same had to be re-assessed under the punjab land reforms act, 1972. ft requires to be mentioned here that other two petitions have been filed by the vendees, who are stated to have purchased the ..... . j. 354 (f.b.). which are judgments of full bench of this court, that on demise of a big land owner, the land declared surplus, which has not been utilised, has to be re-assessed for computing the surplus area under the punjab land reforms act, 1972. as noticed above, the learned counsel for the vendee-petitioners in civil writ petition nos. 315 and 316 of 1982 ..... , the ratio of decision in ranjit ram's case (supra) clearly coves the case of the petitioners and, therefore, the land in hand of the present owners has necessarily to be assessed for computing the surplus area, if any, under the punjab land reforms act, 1972.7. in view of what has been stated above, the order dated april 15, 1959 passed by the collector as ..... commissioner on august 1, 1980 are set aside. it shall, however, be open to the authorities to re-assess the land in the hand of surinder kaur, who as referred above is daughter-in-law of ajmer singh, under the provisions of punjab land reforms act. 1972. it is, however, made clear that if any such exercise is done, the vendees from ajmer singh shall also .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 07 2004 (SC)

Ajmer Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2004(5)SCALE734; (2004)7SCC381

..... ' would mean that the order of the collector has attained finality. the provisions regarding appeals etc. contained in sections 80 - 82 of the punjab tenancy act, 1887, as made applicable to proceedings under the punjab land reforms act, 1972, show that the maximum period of limitation in case of appeal or review is ninety days. the appeal against the final order of the collector ..... limine a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the revenue authorities regarding declaration of a portion of land owner by predecessor in interest of the appellant as surplus under the punjab land reforms act, 1972( hereinafter referred to as the 'act'). briefly the facts are that daya singh, father of the petitioner filed a return regarding his and his wife ..... kartar kaur's holding of lands under section 5 of the act. after scrutinizing the return, the collector found that the holding in ..... dated 30th september, 1976 whereby 3.12 hectares of land had been declared as surplus was dismissed on 27th march, 1979. the order was allowed .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 15 1981 (HC)

Ranjit Ram Vs. the Financial Commissioner, Revenue Punjab, Chandigarh ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1981P& H313

..... . in the cases before us, the surplus area had been declared before the coming into force of the punjab land reforms act, 1972(act no. 10 of 1973)(hereinafter called the act) either under the punjab security of land tenures act, 1953, (hereinafter called the punjab law) or under the pepsi tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1955(hereinafter called the pepsu law). however, in spite of declaration of the surplus area the landowners ..... (herein after referred to as the pepsu law) and who has not yet been diverted of the ownership of the surplus area before the enforcement of the punjab land reforms act. 1972(hereinafter referred to as the reforms act) is entitled to select the permissible are his family ad for each of his adult sons in view of the provision of section 4 read with section 5 ..... to give my own reasons therefor. to my mind question no. 1 deserved to be posed as follows:--1. whether a landowner owning land in excess of the permissible area under section 4 of the punjab land reforms act, 1972, can under section 5 of that act, select permissible area for himself and for each of his adult sons, out of the surplus area declared under the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 1977 (SC)

Dattatraya Govind Mahajan and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1977SC915; (1977)2SCC548; [1977]2SCR790

..... reasoning which has prevailed with us for sustaining the validity of the provisions of the maharashtra, agricultural lands (ceiling on holdings) act, 1961 must apply equally in the present cases arising under the punjab land reforms act, 1972 and we must hold that the impugned provisions of the punjab land reforms act, 1972 are not in conflict with the second proviso to clause (1) of article 31a and in ..... the present appeals before this court.18. now, it may be pointed out straightway that when the high court delivered its judgment on 14th february, 1974, the punjab land reforms act, 1972 was not included in the ninth schedule and hence it was not possible for the state to invoke the protection of article 31-b. but subsequently the ..... of gujarat : [1977]1scr103 . the relevant provisions of the punjab land reforms act, 1972 are almost the same as those of the gujarat agricultural land ceiling act (27 of 1961) which were upheld as constitutionally valid in hasmukhlal's case (supra).20. we accordingly negative the challenge to the constitutional validity of the punjab land reforms act, 1972 and hold that it does not suffer from any of the ..... nos. 1040 and 1220-1248 of 1976.p.n. bhagwati, j.17. these two appeals by the state of punjab are directed against a judgment of the high court of punjab and haryana declaring certain provisions of the punjab land reforms act, 1972 unconstitutional on the ground that they violate the second proviso to clause (1) of article 31a of the constitution. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 29 1996 (HC)

Abnash Chander and anr. Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1997)115PLR619

..... and p7) are hereby quashed. directions are given afresh to the collector (agrarian) ferozepur, to redetermine the surplus area case of respondent tek chand (deceased) as per the punjab land reforms act, 1972, and while redetermining the surplus area case, the area which has been purchased by the present petitioners from tek chand deceased under the two sale deeds, relied upon by them ..... are required to be protected. the collector after remand illegally decided the case under the old act i.e., the punjab security of land tenures act; rather he ought to have decided the surplus area case of respondent no. 4 under the new act, i.e. punjab land reforms act, 1972, so far as these provisions are inconsistent. petitioner's case further is that on 22.6 ..... the surplus area case of respondent no. 4 ought to be decided as per the new provisions of punjab land reforms act, 1972; that the petitioners are the bona fide purchasers of the land from respondent no. 4 and they had made considerable improvements on the land and that the order of the collector has been passed at the back of the petitioners and in ..... utilisation. mutation of the land purchased by the petitioners was sanctioned in the year 1972 and the petitioners entered into actual physical possession thereof. thereafter the petitioners made lot of improvements on the land and spent rs. 2.5 lacs. they also built residential house on the land in question. thereafter the punjab land reforms act (for short 'the new act') came into force on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 1997 (HC)

Smt. Shakti Devi and ors. Vs. Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and ors ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1997)116PLR78

..... this petition, challenge is to order, annexure p-2, whereby special collector, agrarian, district ferozepur, has decided the surplus area case of jagdish rai, a big land-owner under section 3(i) of the punjab land reforms act, 1972. challenge is also to orders, annexures p-4 and p-5, whereby the order of the collector has been affirmed in appeal and revision by the commissioner ..... .1977 decided the surplus area case of jagdish rai under the provisions of punjab land reforms act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 1972 act) vide which land measuring 26.6286 hectares of first quality was declared surplus. against the order of the collector, land owner filed an appeal before the commissioner, ferozepur division, ferozepur, in which the land owner impugned order of the collector on four counts, namely, (i) that ..... of the authorities under the 1972 act. the contention that sub-section (7) of section 11 of the act is ultra-vires is also devoid of any merit. a full bench of this court in ajit kaur and ors. v. punjab state and ors., 1980 p.l.j. 354, has held ' (1) sub-section (7) of section 11 of the punjab land reforms act, will be attracted only .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 2003 (HC)

Smt. Amrit Bir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, Through the Secretary, Deptt. ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2003)135PLR296

..... which has prevailed with us for sustaining the validity of the provisions of the maharashtra agricultural lands (ceiling on holdings) act, 1961 must apply equally in the present cases arising under the punjab land reforms act, 1972 and we must hold that the impugned provisions of the punjab land reforms act, 1972 are not in conflict with the second proviso to clause (1) of article 31-a and ..... it will be beneficial to reproduce the following:'the relevant provisions of the maharashtra agricultural lands (ceiling on holdings) act, 1961 are in fact almost identical with the impugned provisions of the punjab land reforms act, 1972. while dealing with the constitutional validity of the maharashtra agricultural lands (ceiling on holdings) act, 1962 in civil appeals nos. l 132-1164 of 1976, we have pointed ..... applying the limitation or area in reference to the aggregation of such land are violative of second proviso to clause-i of article 31-a of the constitution of india. the petitioner has alleged that the very act of the state legislature in putting the punjab land reforms act, 1972 in 9th schedule is violative of the part-iii of the constitution ..... of india.5. the said act has been enacted as part of agrarian reforms. the family has been defined under section 3(4) of the act which reads as under:(4) 'family' .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 13 1978 (HC)

Harchand Singh Vs. the Collector, Agrarian, Bhotinda and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1979P& H129

..... as well and not a re-determination of the surplus area as such. consequently, in our view, the question whether the provisions of the pepsu tenancy end agricultural land act, 1955, or the punjab land reforms act, 1972, would govern the re-determination of the surplus area does not fall for determination here and, the more so, because of the common stand taken by the parties ..... both the sides took the stand that the present case is not a matter of redetermination of the surplus area afresh either under the pepsu tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1955 or the punjab land reforms act 1972. the common stand taken was that in essence the matter now is the separation of the surplus area from the permissible area after the process of consolidation has ..... of the petitioner came to be reduced by more than 3 s.as. with the result that no land of the petitioner would be rendered surplus in his hands under the pepsu tenancy and agricultural lands act.3. on the enforcement of the punjab land reforms act, 1972, the petitioner duly filed his forms under section 5 thereof and according to the provisions of the said ..... the view that after the, coming into force of the punjab land reforms act, 1972, it would be a moot point whether the surplus area in his hands should he determined afresh under the punjab land re-forms act, 1972, or he should he allowed to retain the 30 s. as. of land under the pepsu tenancy and agricultural lands act. taking the view that this issue raised important questions of .....

Tag this Judgment!


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