Back
SURESHWAR THAKUR, LALIT BATRA
Balbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Since all the writ petition(s) (supra), involve common questions of law, besides, arise from common thereto Annexures, thus, they are amenable to be decided through a common verdict.
2. For the sake of brevity, the facts of CWP-5939-2018 are taken here for deciding the instant controversy.
3. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner(s) ask for quashing of Annexure P-10, as became passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, exercising the powers of Director Consolidation under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter for short called as the 'Consolidation Act, 1948') besides they also ask for the quashing of Annexure P-11, as became passed by the Tehsildar-cum-Consolidation Officer, Manesar, exercising the powers under Section 21 (2) of the 'Consolidation Act, 1948'.
4. The consolidation operations in the mohal concerned commenced in pursuance to a notification (Annexure P-1), which became issued on 27.03.2000. Subsequently, the Consolidation Advisory Committee was constituted on 25.05.2001. As reflected in Annexure P-3, the said Consolidation Advisory Committee determined
The Director of Consolidation lacks jurisdiction to alter finalized consolidation schemes under the Consolidation Act, which can only be revoked by the State Government.
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 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.
Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Act is limited to clerical corrections and cannot alter finalized consolidation schemes or adjudicate disputed titles.
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 ....
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....
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.
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 emphasized the limitations of the authority under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act 1948 and highlighted the distinction between 'Shamilat Deh' and 'Jumla Mushtarka Malkan' in the context....
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
