TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the power of the State Government under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 is controlled by the procedure prescribed under Section 36 when it results in variation of a confirmed consolidation scheme. (ii) Whether reservation of land for extension of abadi under Section 18(c) can be made by taking land from a single proprietor, or whether the power must be exercised only by taking land rateably from all proprietors and other right-holders in the common pool.
Issue (i): Whether the power of the State Government under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 is controlled by the procedure prescribed under Section 36 when it results in variation of a confirmed consolidation scheme.
Analysis: Section 36 empowers the authority confirming a scheme to vary or revoke it, and the statute requires publication of the varied scheme and consideration of objections before reconfirmation. Section 42, as amended, confers a distinct supervisory power on the State Government to pass appropriate orders in relation to a scheme, confirmed scheme, or repartition, after notice and hearing. The two provisions operate in different fields and do not make the Section 42 power dependent on the Section 36 procedure.
Conclusion: The Section 42 power is independent of Section 36, and the variation made by the State Government is not invalid for want of compliance with the publication and objection procedure under Sections 19 and 20.
Issue (ii): Whether reservation of land for extension of abadi under Section 18(c) can be made by taking land from a single proprietor, or whether the power must be exercised only by taking land rateably from all proprietors and other right-holders in the common pool.
Analysis: Section 18(c) must be construed reasonably and in a manner that preserves its validity. A construction permitting land to be reserved from one proprietor alone would be inconsistent with the scheme of village consolidation and would expose the provision to constitutional objection. The provision, read with the consolidation scheme and the rules, requires that land for common purposes be drawn from the village common pool on a rateable basis from all proprietors and other right-holders. The State Government's power under Section 42 cannot exceed the substantive limits of Section 18(c).
Conclusion: The impugned order was ultra vires because the reservation for non-proprietors was not made in accordance with the rateable principle inherent in Section 18(c), and it was liable to be quashed.
Final Conclusion: The consolidation order was struck down, and the appellant succeeded in obtaining quashing of the impugned administrative action.
Ratio Decidendi: Where two constructions of a consolidation statute are possible, the Court must adopt the one that preserves validity; land reserved for common purposes under the consolidation scheme must be taken rateably from the village common pool and not from a single proprietor alone.
TaxTMI 
