Back
SURESHWAR THAKUR, SUKHVINDER KAUR
Ramesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Since a common issue is involved in both the writ petitions therefore both the writ petitions, are amenable to be decided through a common verdict.
2. For the sake of brevity the facts are taken from CWP-19946- 2018.
3. Through the instant petition, the petitioners pray for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for setting aside the impugned order dated 15.05.2018, as embodied in Annexure P-11, passed by the learned Commissioner concerned, through his 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"), vide which the representation/ application of the petitioners for setting aside the implementation of the consolidation scheme prepared in the year 1978, has been dismissed. They also became aggrieved from Annexure P-9, whereby the District Collector, Bhiwani, has strived to in terms of the powers conferred under Section 22(1) and 23(2) of the IPC, through his appointing BDPO as Duty Magistrate, to ensure that the demarcation proceedings of the disputed sites is carried out.
4. In the year 1978 consolidation of the estates of village Asalwa
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 ....
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 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....
Disputes related to land entitlements and mis-allotments should be settled in a civil suit, not under Section 42 of the Act of 1948.
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
