Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948

11 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

GRAM PANCHAYAT, VILLAGE KANONDA, TEHSIL BAHADURGARH, DISTRICT ROHTAK, THROUGH ITS SARPANCHversusDIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS, HARYANA, CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

1989 INSC 31824 October 1989Appeal(s) allowed

The Gram Panchayat owned 1,200 bighas of land that was consolidated and allotted to others under a scheme confirmed in 1974. The Panchayat filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings Act in 1977 to set aside the scheme, but the application was beyond the six‑month limitation prescribed by Rule 18.

PURAN SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

1996 INSC 9318 January 1996

The appellants filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, relating to land allocation under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. During the pendency of the petitio

THE STATE OF HARYANAversusJAI SINGH AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 112216 September 2025Dismissed

The State of Haryana amended the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 by inserting sub‑clause (6) to s.2(g) through Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992, which declared that lands reserved for village common purposes under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 would vest

KARNAIL SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2024 INSC 42416 May 2024Case Allowed

The review petition challenged a Supreme Court judgment that had held that vesting of village common lands in the Gram Panchayat was complete upon mere assignment under Section 18(c) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The petitioner argued that this view ignored the C

RAJENDER SINGHversusGOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS.

2016 INSC 17916 February 2016Case Partly allowed

Consolidation proceedings under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 were completed in 1976 in Village Karala, Delhi. After a lapse of 23 years, respondents 4‑7 filed an application under Section 43A seeking allotment of land, claiming the appellant's father had been in pos

SARJEET SINGH (D) TH. LRS.versusHARI SINGH & ORS.

2014 INSC 72915 October 2014Dismissed

The appellants, co‑sharers of a Shami/at Patti Sayar (common village land) in village Dahina, filed a civil suit seeking declaration and possession of the land against the respondents. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed in favour of the appellants, granting them possession. The High Court set aside t

SMT. PUJARI BAIversusMADAN GOPAL

1989 INSC 19812 July 1989Appeal(s) allowed

Smt. Pujari Bai, a displaced person, was allotted agricultural land and on 29 April 1963 received a permanent Sanad under Section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, conferring absolute title. Later, during consolidation proceedings under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Pr

THE STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANAversusJAI SINGH & ORS.

2022 INSC 4007 April 2022Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 (the Amending Act) which amended the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The issues centered on whether the amendment amounted to an acquisition of land without compensation, whether it fell within the protection of Arti

BAGIRATH SINGH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 4006 September 2005Dismissed

The case concerns the validity of a 1995 Consolidation Scheme for Shamlat Deh lands in three villages of Haryana, originally framed under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1966 and later modified after a series of challenges. Earlier, the Deputy Commissioner had quashed the partition of these lands unde

GRAM PANCHAYAT KAKRANversusADDL. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ANR.

1997 INSC 6883 October 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The Gram Panchayat of village Kakran challenged an order of the Additional Director of Consolidation dated 23 May 1996, which granted a portion of Bachat land to the second respondent after he filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. Th

AMAR SINGH JAGRAM (DEAD) BY LRS.versusCHANDGI S/O DEEP CHAND

1988 INSC 3402 November 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from consolidation proceedings under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, where the landowner Chandgi was allotted substituted parcels of land and the tenants Amar Singh and Jagram, who had been non‑occupancy tenants of the original holding, were not given c

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search