• East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1946 (50 of 1948) Section 42 - Mere fact that respondent No.2 made a statement that he does not wish to pursue his appeal or that he withdraws his appeal, did not empower the Director, Consolidation, to ignore the order passed by his predecessor - Once a party had availed the statutory remedy, provided by Section 21(3) of the Consolidation Act and his predecessor had already rejected a prayer for invoking plenary jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, the Director Consolidation was not justified in entertaining a fresh petition on the same cause - The Director, Consolidation misconstrued his power under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act as while entertaining the petition, he has held that the Director, Consolidation, exercising the power under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, can call for a file of any pending case. Held, that as the Director, Consolidation, while exercising the power under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, had already declined to entertain a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act and directed respondent No.2 to get his appeal decided, his predecessor had no jurisdiction to disregard the order and on a statement made by respondent No.2 that he withdraws his appeal, entertain and decide the petition, filed under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act.  (180) PLR
  • East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948) Section 21(2) - Since the rights of the proprietary body of the village have been adversely affected as its total land holding stands reduced and resultantly, the area under the `management' and `control' of the Gram Panchayat has also been adversely affected, we are satisfied that the impugned orders could not be passed without giving an effective opportunity of hearing to the Gram Panchayat as well as other right-holders of the village. (183) PLR
  • East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948) Section 42 - Consolidation - Once the objections were decided - Had to avail the remedy of appeal and/or revision or any other remedy as is available to him against such order, but he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the State Government under Section 42 of the Act.  (176) PLR
  • East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948) Section 42 - Consolidation authorities are tribunals of limited jurisdiction, conferred with power to consolidate land holding - A finding on a question of title by a tribunal of limited jurisdiction is binding or final as to the correction so ordered but cannot, be held to be final on a matter that does not fall to its jurisdiction - Such an order would be subject, necessarily to any adjudication on the question of title, by the jurisdictional forum, in case the land is "Shamilat Deh" by the Collector, exercising powers under Section 11 of the 1961 Act - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961) Section 11. (175) PLR
  • East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948) Section 42 - First  question posed before us is whether Consolidation authorities are empowered to decide a question of title - The question is raised in the context of proprietors filing a petition, under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act seeking a declaration that land which is "Shamilat Deh" or "Jumla Mushtarka Malkan" does not vest in the Gram Panchayat and requiring the Director Consolidation to partition "Shamilat Deh" amongst proprietors or return "Jumla Mushtarka Malkan" to proprietor - Thereafter consolidation authorities, exercise powers of a revenue officer, they are not empowered to decide a question of  title - Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (17 of 1887) Section 117-A. (175) PLR
  • East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948) Section 42 - Jurisdiction of the Consolidation Officer in respect of a question, as to whether the land reserved for common purposes during consolidation proceedings by applying pro rata cut, can be dealt with in exercise of the powers under Section 42 of the Act - Held additional Director Consolidation has no right to decide that pro rata cut has been wrongly applied or that the land is to be partitioned
  • East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948) Section 42 - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961) Section 11 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Section 11 - Constitution of India, Articles 226, 136 - Orders passed under the Consolidation Act - Are Tribunal of limited jurisdiction - Have no power to decide disputed question of land - Order has not been challenged in a writ petition or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, such order shall be ignored, by the Collector exercising power under Section 11 of the 1961 Act - If order passed by the Director Consolidation has been affirmed, by the High Court or in a special leave petition or an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on merits, the order passed by the Director Consolidation shall be deemed to have merged in orders passed under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution of India and would, therefore, on the basis of the doctrine of rule estoppel, merger and the order of precedence among courts, prohibit the Gram Panchayat from filing a petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act. (175) PLR
  • East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948) Section 42 - Since a juristic person like the Gram Panchayat is not expected to transact its day to day business through oral decisions and official record is required to be maintained, it was imperative upon the Director, Land Records to call for such records and satisfy as to whether or not there was any authorization by the Gram Panchayat and whether the then Additional Director had given ample opportunity to the Gram Panchayat to file its reply and if so, whether such opportunity was availed by the then Sarpanch - It will be in the public interest to direct the Director, Land Records to decide the Gram Panchayat's application afresh. (183) PLR
  • East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948) Section 42 - When exercising power under Section 42 - The Authorities have no power to review order earlier passed. (174) PLR