Back
SURESHWAR THAKUR, KULDEEP TIWARI
Azad Singh – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Rohtak Division Haryana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. aggrieved petitioners challenge consolidation order. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments against annulment of consolidation scheme. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. interpretation of section 42's jurisdiction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. reasonable time to exercise section 42's remedy. (Para 7) |
| 5. gross improprieties in consolidation proceedings. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 6. rejection of consensual argument concerning land allotments. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. dismissal of writ petition and affirmation of order. (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
The present petitioners become aggrieved, from an order drawn on 18.09.2018, appended as Annexure P-7 to the instant writ petition. Annexure P-7 has been drawn by the learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, while exercising powers under Section 42 of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1948' for short). Through the said order, the learned Commissioner, after noticing certain palpable irregularities, and, gross improprieties, in the finalized consolidation scheme, which became settled qua the Mohal concerned on 30.09.2016, proceeded to annul the apposite consolidation proceedings.
Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings Act is limited to clerical corrections and cannot adjudicate title disputes, which are reserved for Civil Courts.
Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Act is limited to clerical corrections and cannot alter finalized consolidation schemes or adjudicate disputed titles.
The jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Act is limited to clerical corrections and does not extend to adjudicating disputed titles, which must be resolved by Civil Courts.
The Director of Consolidation lacks jurisdiction to alter finalized consolidation schemes under the Consolidation Act, which can only be revoked by the State Government.
The jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act is limited to correcting clerical errors and cannot be used to alter finalized consolidation schemes or adjudicate disputed titl....
The court affirmed that disputes regarding consolidation schemes must be resolved through appellate remedies, and title disputes among estate holders are to be adjudicated by civil courts, not under ....
Disputes related to land entitlements and mis-allotments should be settled in a civil suit, not under Section 42 of the Act of 1948.
The court established that disputes over land entitlements post-consolidation must be resolved in civil court, not through administrative corrections under the Consolidation Act.
Authorities under the East Punjab Holdings Act lack power to review orders under Section 42; disputes regarding land titles must be resolved in civil court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
