Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the punjab package deal properties disposal act 1976 Page 1 of about 1,059 results (0.090 seconds)

Jul 22 1987 (SC)

Pala Singh (Deceased) by Lrs Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1988SC873; JT1987(3)SC133; 1987(2)SCALE93; 1987Supp(1)SCC201; [1987]3SCR624; 1987(2)LC353(SC)

..... punjab amended the rules and the said amended rules have been titled as punjab package deal properties (disposal) rules, 1976. these rules lay down elaborate procedure as to how the lands in excess of ..... left his widow and four sons and daughters as his legal representatives. it is for the government of punjab to consider and decide whether the legal representatives of deceased appellant are entitled to purchase the said excess land under the provisions of the punjab package deal properties (disposal) act, 1976 and the rules framed thereunder.16. it is relevant to mention in this connection that the government of ..... no longer in the compensation pool of the central government but it was a package deal property vested in the state of punjab. it has also been rightly held that the chief settlement commissioner is competent under section 24 of the displaced persons (compensation and rehabilitation) act 44 of 1954 to cancel the allotment of land in excess of the area the petitioner is entitled .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2004 (SC)

Kashmir Singh and ors. Vs. Panchayat Samiti, Ferozpur and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2004SC2438; JT2004(5)SC334; RLW2004(2)SC290; 2004(4)SCALE596; (2004)6SCC207

..... set aside.5. we have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.6. package deal property is the property which is transferred by the central government to the state government on payment of price. clause (1-a) of section 2 of the punjab package deal properties (disposal) act, 1976, defines the 'package deal property' as the property which was taken over as surplus evacuee property by the state government. the schedule attached to the aforesaid ..... act, gives details of the lands which were bought by the state government of punjab from the central government. on transfer by the central government all such lands ..... vested in the provincial government under the aforesaid act. counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that the land in question does not find mention in the schedule attached to the aforesaid act. this conclusively shows that the property was not a 'package deal property' as contended by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 15 2004 (HC)

Scheduled Castes Co-op. Society Vs. State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR2005P& H100; (2005)139PLR665

..... till he becomes the owner. learned counsel representing the petitioner society relies upon another set of rules dealing with allotment of evacuee property that has been allotted to the respective states by the central government for disposal. this property is now allotted by virtue of the act, known as punjab package deal properties (disposal) act, 1976. there is no need to make an elaborate mention of these rules as suffice it, to ..... say that whenever there is intention of the legislature to vest as an indefeasible right, which may become absolute only on some conditions, like payment of price or non-alienation of the land, the rules do deal with such situation ..... price of the land have since already been paid before the impugned order, annexure p11, came into being.25. sale has been defined in section 54 of the transfer of property act, 1882. it is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised. a contract for sale of the immovable ..... of surplus area scheme, 1973, framed under the punjab land reforms act, 1972. the said rules dead with the allotment of land declared surplus of big landowners to the eligible tenants and lan (sic) persons. the aforesaid scheme deals with the allotment of surplus land and as a first step to do the same, is to issue notice to sitting tenants. after .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 2006 (HC)

Doaba Nirmal Mandal (Regd.) and anr. Vs. Financial Commissioner Revenu ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2006)143PLR174

..... petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. he has further contended that the plea that the land in question is subject to the governance under the punjab package deal properties (disposal) act, 1976 is not at all sustainable as the portion of the land i.e. measuring 2 kanals 2 marlas has been accepted as sale under the displaced persons (compensation ..... course is indicative of the fact which has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner but this would not mean that the property fell within the purview of punjab package deal properties (disposal) act, 1976 by merely giving the head of the account would not be indicative of the said fact which has been averred by the petitioner. it is ..... and rehabilitation) act, 1954, how the second sale can be taken under the punjab package deal properties (disposal) act, 1976. thus, the question of raising any plea against the jurisdiction of the learned financial commissioner is not sustainable.11. i have heard ..... admitted fact that the petition had been earlier filed under section 15 of the punjab package deal properties (disposal) act, 1976 which was dismissed by the authority on the premises that the property in question is a package deal property and the petitioner (respondent no. 2) filed a petition under the aforesaid act before the learned commissioner, who in turn held vide order dated october 22, 1980 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 2005 (HC)

Jagtar Singh and anr. Vs. Financial Commissioner and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2005)141PLR583

..... was confirmed by the sales commissioner on 28.7.1991 and consequently the conveyance deed was also issued.4. subsequently, puran singh filed a revision under section 10 of the punjab package deal properties (disposal) act, 1976 against the aforesaid sale before the chief sales commissioner, kapurthala alleging that the land was transferred in their favour long back, therefore, it could not have been sold to the ..... nor could it be cancelled for failure to deposit the installments which were liable to recovered as arrears of land revenue under rule 6(6)(xiii) of the punjab package deal properties (disposal) rules, 1976 and under section 21 of the displaced persons (c&r;) act, 1954. i rely on rulings 1994(1) r.l.r. 326 and 1973 r.l.r. 580 of the hon'ble ..... dated 28.7.1982 of the sales commissioner were correctly set aside.11. so far as the plea that the commissioner has committed an illegality in treating the case under punjab package deals properties act, 1976 when this restricted auction was held on 21.1.76 under the displaced persons (c&r;) rules, 1955 is concerned. i am inclined to agree with the state counsel ..... have been cancelled because of non-payment of installment. at the most the installment due could have been recovered as a land revenue as per rule 6(6) of the punjab package deal properties rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the rules). it was also held that the allotment of land to the petitioners on the ground of unauthorized and illegal possession was not justified .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 1990 (HC)

Rattan Singh Vs. Banta Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1990)98PLR554

..... been argued that civil court had no jurisdiction to try tie suit in view of section 16 of the punjab package deal properties (disposal) act, 1976 (hereinafter called the act'), in this context, it has further been argued that the matter has been decided by the authorities under the act holding that, being a passage the same could not be transferred to the plaintiff-appellant, and such orders are ..... other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this act. 2. nothing in the punjab public premises and land (eviction and rent recovery) act, 1973, shall apply to package deal property.' 6. on behalf of the appellant it has been argued that the notice of demolition purporting to be issued under section 7 ..... (2) of the act is illegal and without jurisdiction as no such notice could be issued, firstly, in the absence of any order of ..... cancellation of allotment being passed under sub section (1) of section 7 in respect of any package deal property and, secondly, the authorities under the act had no power to issue such notice in respect of encroachment on passages. in other words passages did not form part of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 16 2004 (HC)

Karnail Singh and ors. Vs. Balwinder Kaur and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR2005P& H183; (2005)139PLR873

..... debarred from entering into any agreement of sale in respect of the suit land before the expiry of 20 years from the date of purchase under the punjab package deal properties (disposal) act, 1976 (for brevity 'the act') (and the punjab package deal properties (disposal) rules, 1976. the sale could also not be made to a non-harijan. on 1.6.2000, the tehsildar after due enquiry has cancelled the allotment/sale in favour ..... full and in whose favour the sale is also confirmed and who is placed in possession should only acquire title to the property from the date on which a certificate is issued to him. there may conceivably be a great deal of time spent before the certificate is granted. in this case the tenant was to attorn from october 3, 1956 because ..... against jd-petitioners and jd-respondent 2 before the additional civil judge, zira for execution of decree dated 15.12.1976 passed in her favour and also prayed for delivery of possession. the jd-petitioners raised the objection based on the act and the rules urging that no sale of the land for a period of 20 years from the date of ..... accepted by learned district judge, ferozepur on 3.5.1976. then decree holder filed appeal in the hon'ble high court and same was accepted and judgment and decree of lower appellate court was dismissed vide judgment dated 27.5.1997. this shows that decree holder has become owner of the suit property on the basis of above said order passed by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 1993 (HC)

inder Singh Vs. Darshan Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1993)105PLR537

..... was put to auction and he being the highest bidder for rs. 4,200/-was declared successful and in accordance with the provisions of the punjab package deal properties (disposal) act, 1976 (hereinafter called the act) paid rs. 900/- at the spot as earnest money. it appears that the private respondent, thereafter, filed an application before the sales commissioner ..... respondents that before the aforesaid order was passed, a notice was served on 1.12.1975 and 13.5.1976 on the appellant. mr. bakshi has, however, relied on rule 17 of punjab package deal properties (disposal) rules, 1976 that the notice was required to be served in a particular manner and if that was not done, an ..... union of india v. tarachand gupta and bros, a.i.r. 1971 s.c. 1558 and ranga singh v. gurbux singh, a.i.r. 1961 punjab 166. it is clear that the basic arguments of mr. bakshi, flow from the premise that the order ex.p1 was passed without notice. i have ..... the appellant has urged that the findings of the courts below on the question of jurisdiction were wrong as the order ex.d1 dated 30.9.1976 was void in as much as it has been passed without issuing any notice to the appellant. he has urged on these facts that an ..... that he was entitled to purchase the suit land as it was contiguous to his present holdings. the sales commissioner vide his order dated 30.9.1976 ex. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 1999 (HC)

Satish Kumar and anr. Vs. Financial Commissioner, Appeals-ii and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2000)124PLR245

..... -8, had no jurisdiction to do so as this officer was not exercising the powers of the state government in terms of the provisions of section 15(1) of the punjab package deal properties (disposal) act, 1976 and secondly that the commissioner had gone wrong on fats and had given a finding that as the petitioners had not been in possession of the ..... from the year 1955 onwards upto the year 1981 and this was reflected in the jamabandis for these years. the question of the petitioners being in possession of the disputed property prior to 1981 even on the showing of their witnesses, therefore, does not arise. there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. ..... property in dispute for a period of two years upto rabi, 1979, they were not entitled to the transfer.2. we have perused the written statement filed by the respondent-state. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 2008 (HC)

Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr. Vs. Shri Ran Singh and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 150(2008)DLT399

..... be vested in the punjab government and came to be dealt with by a new statute dealing with such properties popularly known as 'punjab package deal properties (disposal) act, 1976'. 19. in the case of kapur singh mistri (supra), which was a case under section ..... 8 of the act, the appellant was in possession of disputed property as a displaced person and was held entitled ..... who were allotted lands by way of rehabilitation measure and those who were allotted lands in satisfaction of the compensation payable to them on their verified claims for the properties left in pakistan. in order to bring about the speedy resettlement of displaced persons in some categories of claimants, particularly in the case of delhi colonists, the allotment ..... revenue secretary to govt. of punjab and ors. is also misplaced as the facts in the said cases were entirely different and distinct from the facts of the present cases. in visra singh's case (supra), the appellant continued to be in possession of the allotted land and in the meanwhile the entire properties in the compensation pool came to .....

Tag this Judgment!


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