Back
SURESHWAR THAKUR, KULDEEP TIWARI
Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction over land exchange involves gram panchayat. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. challenge to the legality of jurisdiction under the act of 1948. (Para 2 , 3 , 7) |
| 3. analysis of the jurisdiction and statutory provisions governing land disposition. (Para 8 , 11 , 13) |
| 4. authority's lack of jurisdiction nullifies the order. (Para 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 5. legal principles dictate the nature of jurisdiction. (Para 14 , 15 , 18) |
| 6. writ petition allowed; previous order unsustainable legally. (Para 16 , 17 , 19) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.
The instant writ petition accentuates the ill employment of exercise of jurisdiction, as assumed by the respondent No.2-Director (Consolidation) concerned, while surpassing the original jurisdiction bestowed in him. The respondent No.2- Director (Consolidation) concerned, through an order made on 26.03.2008 (Annexure P-9), upon Case No.208/2007, as instituted under Section 42 of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1948'), allowed the exchange of land, which is undisputedly a 'Gair Mumkin Rasta' and vests in the Gram Panchayat concerned, with the land of private
The Director (Consolidation) lacks the authority to approve land exchanges involving Gram Panchayat property; such matters must be resolved by the Panchayat for the benefit of all villagers.
The court held that a Gram Panchayat cannot authorize land exchanges affecting common paths while legal disputes regarding such paths are pending, affirming that such actions are not in public intere....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exchange of land must be for the benefit of the village inhabitants and in accordance with statutory provisions of law.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that Section 42A of the 1948 Act does not divest the proprietary body of its title to the land reserved for common purposes, and the compensation f....
The Director of Consolidation lacks jurisdiction to alter finalized consolidation schemes under the Consolidation Act, which can only be revoked by the State Government.
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
