https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190709 Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 was held to operate independently of the publication and objection procedure under Section 36, so variation of a confirmed consolidation scheme was not invalid on that ground. The Court also held that reservation of land for extension of abadi under Section 18(c) must be made rateably from the village common pool and not taken from a single proprietor alone; an order departing from that principle was ultra vires and liable to be quashed. en-us Tue, 28 Mar 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:32:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190709 Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 was held to operate independently of the publication and objection procedure under Section 36, so variation of a confirmed consolidation scheme was not invalid on that ground. The Court also held that reservation of land for extension of abadi under Section 18(c) must be made rateably from the village common pool and not taken from a single proprietor alone; an order departing from that principle was ultra vires and liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Mar 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190709