Revision

Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984)

Section 115 – Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), Section 69 – Revision – Maintainability of – Suo-motu powers -- State Government or the Registrar u/s 69 of the Punjab Act and the State Government u/s 115 of the Haryana Act can exercise its suo motu revisional jurisdiction on the application made by an aggrieved person, whether he is or not a party to the reference. Jasbir Singh and others v. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 1 (P&H FB).

Section 114, 115 – Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), Section 68, 69 – Revision – Maintainability of – Remedy of revision is barred only in case where appeal against the impugned order lies u/s 68 of the Punjab Act or u/s 114 of the Haryana Act. Jasbir Singh and others v. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 1 (P&H FB).

Section 115 – Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), Section 69 – Service matter of Society -- Revision – Maintainability of – Remedy of revision is not barred in those cases where aggrieved person has a right of appeal under the Statutory Service Rules or Common Cadre Rules -- An aggrieved party can challenge the order of Registrar or Deputy Registrar passed as an Appellate Authority under the Statutory Rules or Common Cadre Rules by filing a revision u/s 69 of the Punjab Act or u/s 115 of the Haryana Act as no remedy of appeal has been provided u/s 68 of the Punjab Act or u/s 114 of the Haryana Act against such order -- But, if the appellate order is passed by the official of the Society and not by the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Society, no revision is maintainable against such an order -- Revision is maintainable only against the order passed by the authority under the Act or a proceeding arising out of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Jasbir Singh and others v. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 1 (P&H FB).

Section 115 –  Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), Section 69 – Revision – Maintainability of – Suo motu power -- Remedy of revision either suo motu or otherwise cannot be invoked against an order passed by the Society -- The said power can be exercised against the decision or order passed by the authority under the Act or a proceeding arising out of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Jasbir Singh and others v. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 1 (P&H FB).

Section 115 – Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), Section 69 – Revision – Maintainability of --  Suo motu power -- Suo motu power of revision cannot be exercised by the State Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, where a revision u/s 69 of the Punjab Act or u/s 115 of the Haryana Act itself is not maintainable either on the ground that against the impugned order an appeal has been provided u/s 68 of the Punjab Act or u/s 114 of the Haryana Act or on any other ground -- - In case the Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, exercise suo motu power of revision on the application of an aggrieved party or otherwise, it must be specifically so stated in the order itself. Jasbir Singh and others v. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 1 (P&H FB).

Bonafide need

Punjab Rent Act -- In view of Section 13(4) of the Act, need alleged by the landlords must be presumed to be correct and genuine, unless of course, proved otherwise. Balbir Kaur and others v. Roop Lal and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 101 (P&H).

Punjab Rent Act -- Pleadings – Subsequent events -- Court at any stage of proceedings can take into consideration subsequent events and mould the relief -- On the issue of non-pleadings of ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act, if the landlord had failed to plead the ingredients but led evidence to that effect then the nonpleadings of ingredients is not fatal – Landlords have now got residential house vacated and are held to be having a bona fide necessity of the demised premises (SCF), which has been duly established on the basis of evidence led – Eviction order upheld. Vishal Garg v. Kanwaljit Kaur and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 92 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Death of landlord -- Whether the Legal Representatives of landlord are required to seek amendment of the eviction petition in order to set up their own case for the purpose of eviction of the tenants on the ground of personal necessity – Landlord had already taken a plea in the eviction petition and categorically stated on oath in his affidavit that that he wanted to settle his son -- All the requirements of law were complied with by landlord even before his death and rest has been complied by his widow who had stated in her examination that they do not possess any other commercial building in Chandigarh nor had vacated – Held, matter not requires a remand for the legal heirs of landlord to set up their own case. Vishal Garg v. Kanwaljit Kaur and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 92 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Eviction of tenant – Non-occupation by landlord -- Remedy of -- Safeguard is provided by the legislature, if landlord or his family for whose benefit eviction was obtained, fails to occupy the premises for a continuous period of 12 months from the date of obtaining possession or where he puts that building to any use or lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order and direction that he shall be restored to possession of such building. Balbir Kaur and others v. Roop Lal and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 101 (P&H).

Rent Act -- It is the prerogative of the landlord to expand his business -- If landlord asserts that he requires the tenanted premises to expand his business, his need must be presumed as bonafide. -- Rent Controller shall not proceed to presume that alleged need is not bonafide -- This is not open to the Rent Controller to say that landlords are already having business in different countries and cities and are well settled in their lives, hence do not require demised premises for setting up Departmental Store of world repute in City -- Landlord is the best judge of his need and requirement -- If landlords want to open big Departmental Store in all the six floors of the building, tenant or Rent Controller have no business to dictate that landlords should start business in 1300 square feet ground floor area -- Every landlord has every right to expand business or to open new ventures. Balbir Kaur and others v. Roop Lal and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 101 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Merely because landlords have not filed eviction petition against all the tenants in one go for the same need and have filed petitions against the Corporation at the subsequent stage, does not mean that the landlords have no requirement for personal use and occupation of the entire building as set up by the landlords -- Landlord is the master of his case and need and if he decides to file petition against the tenants at different stages for the same need, then landlord’s need cannot be said to be malafide. Balbir Kaur and others v. Roop Lal and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 101 (P&H).

Allotment of land

Allotment of land

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (For Punjab) -- Shamlat deh -- Allotment in favour of the vendors of the petitioners was made prior to 09.07.1985 -- Such allotment is protected by virtue of amendment inserted vide Punjab Act No.8 of 1995 -- However, the question whether the allotment is actuated by fraud or misrepresentation, it shall be open to the Panchayat or such other competent authority to take such remedy as is permissible on any legally permissible grounds, but till such time the allotments are set aside, it cannot be said that the sales in favour of the petitioners are not protected by the aforesaid Act. Amarjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 40 (P&H DB).

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (For Punjab) -- Shamlat deh -- Sales effected prior to the judgment in Malwinder Singh’s case, AIR 1985 SC 1394 have been protected by virtue of amendment inserted vide Punjab Act No.8 of 1995 -- Since the vendors of the petitioners have been allotted land prior to 09.07.1985 i.e. the date of judgment in Malwinder Singh’s case (supra), therefore, the petitioners being vendee of vendors, whose allotment is protected, are entitled to the possession of the land so purchased. Amarjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 40 (P&H DB).

Appointment of Lambardar

Choice of Collector -- Decision of the Collector can only be upset when higher authorities or this Court finds that Collector has been mislead by irrelevant factors or has escaped any important material while considering the candidature or action of the Collector seems to be out of extraneous consideration. Amarjit Kaur v. Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 89 (P&H).

Choice of Collector – Interference in -- Respondent No.4 is more educated -- No disability or ineligibility in the merit of respondent No.4 can be traced -- Merit is comparative -- Grand father of respondent No.4 was a Lambardar, it cannot be ruled out that respondent No.4 has some experience of lambardari -- Discretion exercised by the District Collector is not perverse in any manner or arbitrary in effect -- No interference in the order of District Collector was called for. Kuldeep Singh v. State of Haryana & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 81 (P&H).

Choice of Collector -- Neither Divisional Commissioner nor Financial Commissioner had recorded any finding that the Collector has over-looked any important material, which would have resulted in the different opinion or action of the Collector is out of extraneous consideration or Collector was mislead by placing irrelevant record before him -- Order of the Collector ought not to have been disturbed by the authorities below. Amarjit Kaur v. Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 89 (P&H).

Good Character – Acquittal from criminal case -- Effect of -- A person with clean record and good character is required to be appointed as Lambardar who would command respect of the residents in the Estate -- Although petitioner has been acquitted, however, for quite a length of time, criminal proceedings were pending against him in trial -- Apprehension of the Financial Commissioner, that residents of the village would not have due regard for the petitioner so as to give him information as required in discharge of functions by a Lambardar, cannot be said to be without reasonable basis -- No ground for judicial review of the impugned order. Narender Kumar v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 110 (P&H).

Owning of School – Effect of -- Merely because petitioner is running a school, would not mean that she will not be available in the village to perform duties of Lambardar -- Petitioner gave sufficient explanation that she has engaged several teachers and staff in the school to look after the management, other jobs and teaching activities, therefore, presence of the petitioner in the school regularly is not required – Held, merely because, Lambardar is running a school in the nearby city, cannot be a basis to create doubt that in future she would not be available in the village to discharge duties of Lambardar. Amarjit Kaur v. Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 89 (P&H).

Qualification – Involvement in commercial activities – Effect of -- If other qualities or qualifications of the candidate are appealing and he is permanent resident of the village and ordinarily residing in the same village, his candidature should not be refused solely on the ground that he is engaged in some commercial activities near the village to earn his livelihood. Amarjit Kaur v. Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 89 (P&H).

Qualification -- Whether a Lambardar is expected to be unemployed or merely engaged in agricultural activities? – Held, Lambardar cannot be expected to be an unemployed or merely engaged in agricultural activities. Amarjit Kaur v. Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 89 (P&H).

Acquittal from criminal case

Effect of -- Appointment of Lambardar – A person with clean record and good character is required to be appointed as Lambardar -- Although petitioner has been acquitted, however, for quite a length of time, criminal proceedings were pending against him in trial -- Apprehension of the Financial Commissioner, that residents of the village would not have due regard for the petitioner so as to give him information as required in discharge of functions by a Lambardar, cannot be said to be without reasonable basis -- No ground for judicial review of the impugned order. Narender Kumar v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 110 (P&H).

Suspension of Sarpanch/Panch

Challenge to -- Enquiry – Right of – Sarpanch/Panch can be placed under suspension during the pendency of the enquiry for the alleged misconduct committed by him – There is no question of keeping him under suspension for the indefinite period – Direction given to initiate and hold the enquiry for the alleged misconduct and to conclude the same after affording opportunity to the petitioner, preferably within four months and if petitioner is not found guilty for the alleged misconduct, suspension order will go -- However, if enquiry is not concluded within four months as directed, impugned orders shall be deemed to have been set aside. Gurjinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 418 (P&H).

Moral turpitude – Registration of F.I.R. – Pendency of criminal trial – Effect of -- Elected Sarpanch/Panch represents the society and they are the elected representatives and role-model of the habitants of the village, therefore, they are supposed not to indulge in any criminal activities, more so, in offence punishable under the NDPS Act -- Petitioner shall remain under suspension during the pendency of the investigation/trial, as the case may be. Paramjit Kaur, Panch v. The Financial Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 521 (P&H).

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Appeal – Necessary party – Complainant is necessary party -- In view of the complaint and on the basis of inquiry reports, the Director removed respondent from the post of Sarpanch – Appeal was filed without impleading the complainants as parties – Held, complainants were the aggrieved parties, so the appellate authority slipped into a legal error in accepting the appeal, even without issuing notice to complainant, who were the necessary parties -- Appellate authority ought to have issued notice and provided adequate opportunity of being heard to the complainants before deciding the appeal against them in view of the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Baldip Pal Singh and another v. Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Punjab Govt. and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 270 (P&H).

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 -- Appeal – Review application by complainant – Single line order “Review application is not liable to be accepted, therefore, it is dismissed” cannot possibly be termed to be a proper adjudication of rights of the complainants in the appeal -- Contention that review application of complainants was dismissed, so, they would be deemed to be parties in the appeal, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. Baldip Pal Singh and another v. Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Punjab Govt. and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 270 (P&H).

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Appeal – Speaking order -- Appellate authority not adhered to the actual grounds of removal mentioned in the order of the Director based on the report of regular inquiry of ADC -- Real controversy between the parties was not decided – Held, order is non-speaking, appellate authority ought to have discussed the material on record -- Such statutory appellate authority, exercising the powers under the Act, should act independently -- Every action of such authority must be informed by reasons -- Order must be fair, clear, reasonable and in the interest of justice and fair play -- Every order must be confined and structured by rational and relevant material on record because the valuable democratic rights of the parties are involved in the lis. Baldip Pal Singh and another v. Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Punjab Govt. and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 270 (P&H).

Regular Enquiry – Writ Jurisdiction -- Since regular inquiry is pending against the petitioner, therefore, the court not inclined to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to see the correctness of the suspension order on the basis of preliminary inquiry, wherein petitioner was prima facie found guilty for the charges. Gurcharan Singh, Sarpanch v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 535 (P&H).

Review of – Writ jurisdiction -- Sarpanch was suspended, on account of allegations of illegal possession of her husband on shamilat land -- Illegal possession purportedly had been removed and therefore, application for reinstatement was filed – Sarpanch was reinstated, however, with the stipulation that regular enquiry would be conducted by District Revenue Officer -- Suspension or reinstatement is a temporary measure during the pendency of a regular enquiry -- If misconduct is established after regular enquiry, surely, the authorities would take action as per law -- No interference against an interim arrangement is called for, in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Lakhmi Chand v. State of Haryana & others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 40 (P&H).

Suspension order cannot be kept in force for indefinite period and shall be only for the period when regular inquiry is pending against the Panch/Sarpanch -- Regular inquiry has already been marked – Authorities directed to conclude the final inquiry within 90 days and if inquiry is not complete/concluded within the time prescribed, suspension order shall be deemed having been revoked on the expiry of 90 days -- However, if in the final inquiry charges against the petitioner are found proved, authorities shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Gurcharan Singh, Sarpanch v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 535 (P&H).

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)

Section 56, 81 – Marshalling -- Concept of marshalling by subsequent purchaser can be explained by the following illustration -- A owns properties X and Y -- Both these properties are mortgaged to C -- Later, A sells property X to B -- Now, B will be entitled to insist that his vendor A, shall satisfy his mortgage debt out of property Y (unsold) in the first instance as far as possible -- If after property Y is exhausted there still remains balance of debt, only then property X will be drawn upon -- Section 56 deals with the concept of marshalling in a transaction involved in subsequent sale, on the other hand, Section 81 is applicable only to mortgages -- Doctrine of marshalling rests upon the principle that a creditor who has the means of satisfying his debt out of several funds shall not, by the exercise of his right, prejudice another creditor whose security comprises only one of the funds. M/s J.P. Builders & Another v. A. Ramadas Rao & Another, 2011(2) L.A.R. 12 (SC).

Section 56, 81 – Sale of mortgaged property – Marshalling -- In view of the sale agreement which results into decree for specific performance, the plaintiff is entitled to insist upon defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to have the mortgage debt satisfied out of the properties not sold to the plaintiff and in any case if the sale proceeds are not sufficient then to proceed against the said suit properties. M/s J.P. Builders & Another v. A. Ramadas Rao & Another, 2011(2) L.A.R. 12 (SC).

Section 56, 81 –Marshalling – Plea of -- Plea of marshalling being pure question of law based upon the decree obtained for specific performance, cannot simply be thrown out merely because the same was not specifically pleaded. M/s J.P. Builders & Another v. A. Ramadas Rao & Another, 2011(2) L.A.R. 12 (SC).

Section 107 – Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17(1) -- Lease – Registration of – Unregistered lease – Lease deed reserved annual rent of Rs.99/- and the lease was from year to year -- In view of Section 17 (1) (d) of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the lease deed required compulsory registration, but the same is unregistered – Held, the unregistered lease deed could not transfer any right, title or interest in the suit land in favour of the plaintiff – Contention that even unregistered lease deed can be looked into for collateral purposes like nature of possession has no merit because the lease deed, being unregistered, could not have the effect of creating lease rights in favour of the plaintiff. Ram Bhul and others v. Ram Chand, 2011(2) L.A.R. 547 (P&H).

Unauthorised occupants

Compounding of -- Gram Sabha land -- Ordinarily, compounding in such cases should only be allowed where the land has been leased to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or the land is actually being used for a public purpose of the village e.g. running a school for the villagers, or a dispensary for them. Jagpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 187 (SC).

Gram Sabha land -- Trespassers illegally encroached on to the Gram Panchayat land by using muscle power/money power and in collusion with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat – Held, such kind of blatant illegalities must not be condoned -- Even if the appellants have built houses on the land in question they must be ordered to remove their constructions, and possession of the land in question must be handed back to the Gram Panchayat. Jagpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 187 (SC).

Eviction of -- Regularization of -- Shamilat deh -- Directions given to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village -- Said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing -- Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession -- Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land. Jagpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 187 (SC).

Regularization of -- In many states Government orders have been issued by the State Government permitting allotment of Gram Sabha land to private persons and commercial enterprises on payment of some money – Held, all such Government orders are illegal, and should be ignored. Jagpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 187 (SC).

Regularization of -- Pond -- Land recorded as a pond must not be allowed to be allotted to anybody for construction of a house or any allied purpose. Jagpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 187 (SC).

Gram Sabha land -- Letter dated 26.9.2007 of the Government of Punjab permitting regularization of possession of unauthorized occupants is not valid – Held, such letters are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction -- Such illegalities cannot be regularized -- Common interest of the villagers cannot be allow to suffer merely because the unauthorized occupation has subsisted for many years. Jagpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 187 (SC).

Choice of Collector

Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of the Collector can be interfered with when higher authorities or this Court come to the conclusion that while taking a decision, the Collector failed to take into consideration the relevant factors or based its decision on extraneous considerations or on irrelevant factors not germane therefor. Mahavir Singh’s case 2009(3) SCC 439 relied. Ram Chander v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 196 (P&H).

Appointment of Lambardar -- Collector is the best judge in the case of appointment to the post of a Lambardar, his decision can be interfered with only if it is perverse in law and on facts. Mohinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 416 (P&H DB).

Appointment of Lambardar – Collector's choice, unless it is vitiated in law and on facts, is not to be interfered in the case of appointment of a Lambardar. Ranjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandry, Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 399 (P&H DB).

Appointment of Lambardar – District Collector appointed the respondent being younger candidate, better qualified and having more land -- District Collector ignored the fact that the petitioner was a mature person of 50 years, remained Sarbrah of the deceased Lamabrdar and having good experience of lambardari and that the petitioner was having 2-1/2 acres of land whereas the respondent had 5-1/2 acres of land, out of which he had mortgaged 3-1/2 acre with the Bank – Held, petitioner is more meritorious than the respondent, revision accepted -- Petitioner is appointed as Lambardar. Kashmir Singh v. Khajan Singh, 2011(2) L.A.R. 563 (FC Pb.).

Appointment of Lambardar – Heart patient – Autorickshaw puller -- Commissioner was not justified in interfering in the choice of the Collector, on flimsy ground that a candidate was plying an autorickshaw and was a heart patient -- On such a ground, choice of the Collector appointing a person, who is Ex-Serviceman and also belongs to the community for which the post is reserved, should not have been interfered – Such interference is an arbitrary and perverse. Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 118 (P&H DB).

Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960

Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Show cause notice -- A show cause notice is not necessarily an inviolable principle; It is unnecessary when the party knows that he has not obtained a vested right in the subject matter. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Public auction – Setting aside of -- Show cause notice – Requirement of -- If there had been an outright sale of the property and the person, who conducts the auction was himself competent to conclude the contract and a contract had been concluded/confirmed, a decision to annul the contract could not be made without giving a notice to the person to explain the same and to take a decision of the basis on such objections. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Public auction – Setting aside of -- Show cause notice – Requirement of -- Where an auction is subject to a confirmation by another authority, a person that bids at the auction ought to know that by the mere fact that he has made the highest bid does not conclude the contract and if a decision is taken by yet another officer not to confirm the sale, such a decision need not be put to the party before a decision is taken -- It is not the same thing as to state that a sanctioning authority may take an arbitrary decision -- Validity of such a decision will still be a subject to judicial review. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Public auction – Setting aside of -- Show cause notice – Requirement of -- If, the auction had been set aside attributing any practice of fraud or collusion against any of the petitioners, they would be justified in stating that decision without putting them on notice of such decision was illegal -- Auction is being set aside on existence of some supervening events that had a bearing on the unjustness of the result of the auction in which the petitioners had themselves no part -- Loss of property is itself not the prejudice -- Prejudice shall be to show how the notice would have made a difference. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Show cause notice -- Detailed procedure to show cause notice before a resumption was made, it is in the context of how a person, who obtains an allotment and who comes upon the property, is made to vacate the property and such a decision, which will have an immediate effect on a right to hold on to possession, could not be made without a transparent process that involves the affected party to show cause as to why the extreme action shall not be taken. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Public auction – Higher bid in a week -- If there was an offer within a week by yet another person for a price above what was offered in this case for the property, it only showed that it would have been prudent to keep back the property from sale without offering it for public when the market forces were pulling the prices down. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Public auction – Setting aside of – Auction purchasers have not invested any big sums -- Their deposits were in terms of a few lakhs and they have not had the benefit of possession all the years -- If the sales were allowed to stand, the private individuals would come to enormous benefit that would benefit only them -- If, on the other hand, the sales were to be set aside, it would make possible for realisation of over Rs.50 crores for the property by Administration – Setting aside of auction upheld, auction purchaser would be entitled to refund of their moneys with interest @24% per annum. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Rule 6 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Public auction – Setting aside of -- Sales had not been approved and sale deeds had not been executed in the manner contemplated in the Rules -- Consideration for the property had not been paid in full – Auction purchaser had not taken possession and the property had not been put to use by the petitioners -- It is not a case where the auction purchasers had to close down business by the action of the Administration – Auction purchaser could no more than complain of loss of hypothetical profits, if the property had been sold, if the property had been delivered possession, if the property had been put to use for the business, if profits had accrued and a host of imponderables – Auction sale shall be cancelled. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Rule 6 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 20 – Public auction – Sale of property -- If it was merely a transaction between private individuals, a mere increase in price may not be a ground to refuse a specific enforcement -- Governing principles between a private individual and a State authority cannot be the same; a fortiorari, the remedy under the private law and public law cannot also be the same -- In State actions, public interest is the most predominant principle. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Will

Exhibit of – Proof of Will -- Mere exhibiting a document (Will) does not dispense with its proof and the parties relying upon it, are bound to prove the same, in accordance with law -- Admissibility or otherwise of the Will and whether the evidence is beyond pleadings or not, will be decided by the trial Court at the time of final decision of the case. Prema v. Rajbir, 2011(2) L.A.R. 603 (P&H).

Proof of -- Deposition by one attesting witness in clear and unambiguous terms stated that not only he but, the other attesting witness to the Will was also present at the time the Testator affixed his signature on the Will -- Requirement of attestation of the Will by two witnesses each of whom has seen the Testator signing or affixing his mark has been satisfied – In the matter of proof of documents as in the case of the proof of Wills, it is idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty -- Test to be applied always is the test of satisfaction of a prudent mind in such matters – Will in question duly registered document is not surrounded by any suspicious circumstances of any kind and is proved to have been duly and properly executed. Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 634 (SC).

Proof of -- In cases where the document sought to be proved is required by law to be attested, the same cannot let be in evidence unless at least one of the attesting witnesses has been called for the purpose of proving the attestation, if any such attesting witness is alive and capable of giving evidence and is subject to the process of the Court. Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 634 (SC).

Proof of -- It is evident that a Will is required to be attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the Testator signing or affixing his mark on the Will or has seen some other person signing the Will in the presence and by the direction of the Testator or has received from the Testator a personal acknowledgment of the signature or mark or his signature or the signature of such other person and that each of the witnesses has signed the Will in the presence of the Testator -- Section 68 of the Evidence Act is against the use of a Will in evidence unless one attesting witness has been examined to prove the execution. Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 634 (SC).

Proof of -- Placement of the signature of the Testator on the Will -- Signature of the Testator appear at the right hand bottom part of the Will -- The placement of the signature on the document is, therefore, appropriate and clearly suggestive of the fact that the document was intended to be given effect to as a Will. Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 634 (SC).

Proof of -- Placement of the signature of the Testator on the Will -- Signature of the Testator appear at the right hand bottom part of the Will -- The placement of the signature on the document is, therefore, appropriate and clearly suggestive of the fact that the document was intended to be given effect to as a Will. Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 634 (SC).

Proof of -- Section 63 would show that proof of execution of a Will would require the following aspects to be proved: (1) That the Testator has signed or affixed his mark to the Will or the Will has been signed by some other person in the presence and under the direction of the Testator -- (2) The signature or mark of the Testator or the signature of the persons signing for him is so placed has to appear that the same was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will -- (3) That the Will has been attested by two or more witnesses each one of whom has signed or affixed his mark to the Will or has been seen by some other person signing the Will in the presence and by the direction of the Testator or has received from Testator a personal acknowledgement of the signature or mark or the signature of each other person -- (4) That each of the witnesses has singed the Will in the presence of the Testator. Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 634 (SC).

Registration of – Inability of person to go to Registrar office -- If a person is unable to go to the office of Sub Registrar for some reason to get the document registered, then on request of the party, the Sub Registrar comes at the spot and registers a document on deposit of some fee. Nachhattar Singh v. Angrez Kaur, 2011(2) L.A.R. 46 (P&H).

Suspicious circumstances –  Unlike other documents, a will speaks after the death of the testator and as such when it is propounded, the testator is no longer in this world to say whether it is his will or not -- It is due to this fact that courts generally call for a strict proof of the will -- In such a case the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. Rajinder Kaur v. Manjit Kaur and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 440 (P&H).

Suspicious circumstances –  Working place of the testator is District Courts where he is permanent government employee of the office of Deputy Commissioner -- Testator was working in that office where hundreds of documents are registered daily -- Therefore, he is expected to understand the value of the document and the procedure for preparation of the same -- He was having the knowledge/value of a registered document i.e., if a document is duly registered, the chances of doubting its genuineness and authenticity are very less -- Moreover, the testator knew that such important documents are to be scribed from a regular deed-writer and entry/endorsement should be made in the register and such a document should not be kept unregistered -- If the testator would execute the will, he will call some respectables of his confidence from City or atleast from the vicinity, where he permanently reside -- No special reason has come on record as to why the testator opted to execute the will at his house, that too, from a professional semi illiterate driver -- No special affinity or love and affection of the testator with the marginal witnesses is explained -- Signatures of testator are at two places at the will in the blue oml while the entire body of the will is in the black ink -- Thumb impression of one of the marginal witnesses is in ink and the ridges are not visible on this thumb impression -- Testator knew that thumb impression on a document is always obtained with ink pad -- Propounder of the will, has totally failed to discharge the heavy onus upon her explaining the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will and in establishing that the Will in question was a valid and genuine document duly executed by deceased – Will is held to be forged, fictitious and fake document. Rajinder Kaur v. Manjit Kaur and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 440 (P&H).

Suspicious circumstances -- Execution of the Will in favour of a total stranger to the exclusion of testator's own sons and daughters is a grave suspicious circumstance surrounding the impugned Will – It is also significant to notice that the alleged Will is dated 31.12.1997 and testator died on 24.03.1998, but the will was got registered on 18.09.2000 i.e 2 ½ years after the death of the deceased -- Will was scribed by layman and not by professional Deed Writer -- One cousin of testator is a practicing advocate -- It has also come in evidence that the deceased had cordial relationship with the plaintiffs -- Will is, held to be, shrouded with so many suspicious circumstances. Jagtar Singh v. Mangat Saini and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 205 (P&H).

Suspicious circumstances – Onus of proof -- Where there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the will, the onus heavily lies on the propounder to explain the circumstances to the satisfaction of the court before the court accepts the will as genuine. Rajinder Kaur v. Manjit Kaur and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 440 (P&H).

Suspicious circumstances -- Will is a document like tissue paper -- When a drop of suspicion falls on the Will, it will dissolve -- Testator, an old aged lady, died within 24 hours from the alleged execution of unregistered Will – Will was allegedly executed in the hospital -- Doctor has not made any endorsement on the Will that the testator was in sound disposing mind and understood her good and bad -- Will is attested by two marginal witnesses and one of them, was withheld and was not examined -- It was necessary to examine him to clear the doubts arisen after the testator died on the next day -- No indoor medical file of the testator was brought on record -- Ailment and the diagnosis of the testator have not come on record -- No effort was made to get the Will registered with the Sub Registrar -- Only explanation given is that the Sub Registrar was not in his office, which is falsified from the statement of Registry Clerk -- Another strong suspicious circumstance is that real nephew submitted an application before the Joint Sub Registrar in his office, that testator aged about 80 years, lying unconscious in the Hospital, has not executed any Will or other document and she was unable to speak – Men may tell lie but the documents cannot -- Mark ‘A’, a note on the letter-pad written by Doctor that the testator was fit to make a statement is of no help as the doctor neither signed the original Will nor signed the register of Petition Writer -- Such like note written on his letter pad can be written later on -- Even the Petition Writer did not mention the place of scribing the document in his register -- No Ration Card, Voter Card, Joint Photograph of the beneficiary family or any other document has been brought on record to prove that testator was residing with beneficiary or that he or his family was rendering services to her -- No special reason has been mentioned in the Will to exclude the other heirs -- Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Nachhattar Singh v. Angrez Kaur, 2011(2) L.A.R. 46 (P&H).

Will

Exhibit of – Proof of Will -- Mere exhibiting a document (Will) does not dispense with its proof and the parties relying upon it, are bound to prove the same, in accordance with law -- Admissibility or otherwise of the Will and whether the evidence is beyond pleadings or not, will be decided by the trial Court at the time of final decision of the case. Prema v. Rajbir, 2011(2) L.A.R. 603 (P&H).

Proof of -- Deposition by one attesting witness in clear and unambiguous terms stated that not only he but, the other attesting witness to the Will was also present at the time the Testator affixed his signature on the Will -- Requirement of attestation of the Will by two witnesses each of whom has seen the Testator signing or affixing his mark has been satisfied – In the matter of proof of documents as in the case of the proof of Wills, it is idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty -- Test to be applied always is the test of satisfaction of a prudent mind in such matters – Will in question duly registered document is not surrounded by any suspicious circumstances of any kind and is proved to have been duly and properly executed. Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 634 (SC).

Proof of -- In cases where the document sought to be proved is required by law to be attested, the same cannot let be in evidence unless at least one of the attesting witnesses has been called for the purpose of proving the attestation, if any such attesting witness is alive and capable of giving evidence and is subject to the process of the Court. Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 634 (SC).

Proof of -- It is evident that a Will is required to be attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the Testator signing or affixing his mark on the Will or has seen some other person signing the Will in the presence and by the direction of the Testator or has received from the Testator a personal acknowledgment of the signature or mark or his signature or the signature of such other person and that each of the witnesses has signed the Will in the presence of the Testator -- Section 68 of the Evidence Act is against the use of a Will in evidence unless one attesting witness has been examined to prove the execution. Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 634 (SC).

Proof of -- Placement of the signature of the Testator on the Will -- Signature of the Testator appear at the right hand bottom part of the Will -- The placement of the signature on the document is, therefore, appropriate and clearly suggestive of the fact that the document was intended to be given effect to as a Will. Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 634 (SC).

Proof of -- Placement of the signature of the Testator on the Will -- Signature of the Testator appear at the right hand bottom part of the Will -- The placement of the signature on the document is, therefore, appropriate and clearly suggestive of the fact that the document was intended to be given effect to as a Will. Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 634 (SC).

Proof of -- Section 63 would show that proof of execution of a Will would require the following aspects to be proved: (1) That the Testator has signed or affixed his mark to the Will or the Will has been signed by some other person in the presence and under the direction of the Testator -- (2) The signature or mark of the Testator or the signature of the persons signing for him is so placed has to appear that the same was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will -- (3) That the Will has been attested by two or more witnesses each one of whom has signed or affixed his mark to the Will or has been seen by some other person signing the Will in the presence and by the direction of the Testator or has received from Testator a personal acknowledgement of the signature or mark or the signature of each other person -- (4) That each of the witnesses has singed the Will in the presence of the Testator. Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 634 (SC).

Registration of – Inability of person to go to Registrar office -- If a person is unable to go to the office of Sub Registrar for some reason to get the document registered, then on request of the party, the Sub Registrar comes at the spot and registers a document on deposit of some fee. Nachhattar Singh v. Angrez Kaur, 2011(2) L.A.R. 46 (P&H).

Suspicious circumstances –  Unlike other documents, a will speaks after the death of the testator and as such when it is propounded, the testator is no longer in this world to say whether it is his will or not -- It is due to this fact that courts generally call for a strict proof of the will -- In such a case the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. Rajinder Kaur v. Manjit Kaur and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 440 (P&H).

Suspicious circumstances –  Working place of the testator is District Courts where he is permanent government employee of the office of Deputy Commissioner -- Testator was working in that office where hundreds of documents are registered daily -- Therefore, he is expected to understand the value of the document and the procedure for preparation of the same -- He was having the knowledge/value of a registered document i.e., if a document is duly registered, the chances of doubting its genuineness and authenticity are very less -- Moreover, the testator knew that such important documents are to be scribed from a regular deed-writer and entry/endorsement should be made in the register and such a document should not be kept unregistered -- If the testator would execute the will, he will call some respectables of his confidence from City or atleast from the vicinity, where he permanently reside -- No special reason has come on record as to why the testator opted to execute the will at his house, that too, from a professional semi illiterate driver -- No special affinity or love and affection of the testator with the marginal witnesses is explained -- Signatures of testator are at two places at the will in the blue oml while the entire body of the will is in the black ink -- Thumb impression of one of the marginal witnesses is in ink and the ridges are not visible on this thumb impression -- Testator knew that thumb impression on a document is always obtained with ink pad -- Propounder of the will, has totally failed to discharge the heavy onus upon her explaining the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will and in establishing that the Will in question was a valid and genuine document duly executed by deceased – Will is held to be forged, fictitious and fake document. Rajinder Kaur v. Manjit Kaur and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 440 (P&H).

Suspicious circumstances -- Execution of the Will in favour of a total stranger to the exclusion of testator's own sons and daughters is a grave suspicious circumstance surrounding the impugned Will – It is also significant to notice that the alleged Will is dated 31.12.1997 and testator died on 24.03.1998, but the will was got registered on 18.09.2000 i.e 2 ½ years after the death of the deceased -- Will was scribed by layman and not by professional Deed Writer -- One cousin of testator is a practicing advocate -- It has also come in evidence that the deceased had cordial relationship with the plaintiffs -- Will is, held to be, shrouded with so many suspicious circumstances. Jagtar Singh v. Mangat Saini and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 205 (P&H).

Suspicious circumstances – Onus of proof -- Where there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the will, the onus heavily lies on the propounder to explain the circumstances to the satisfaction of the court before the court accepts the will as genuine. Rajinder Kaur v. Manjit Kaur and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 440 (P&H).

Suspicious circumstances -- Will is a document like tissue paper -- When a drop of suspicion falls on the Will, it will dissolve -- Testator, an old aged lady, died within 24 hours from the alleged execution of unregistered Will – Will was allegedly executed in the hospital -- Doctor has not made any endorsement on the Will that the testator was in sound disposing mind and understood her good and bad -- Will is attested by two marginal witnesses and one of them, was withheld and was not examined -- It was necessary to examine him to clear the doubts arisen after the testator died on the next day -- No indoor medical file of the testator was brought on record -- Ailment and the diagnosis of the testator have not come on record -- No effort was made to get the Will registered with the Sub Registrar -- Only explanation given is that the Sub Registrar was not in his office, which is falsified from the statement of Registry Clerk -- Another strong suspicious circumstance is that real nephew submitted an application before the Joint Sub Registrar in his office, that testator aged about 80 years, lying unconscious in the Hospital, has not executed any Will or other document and she was unable to speak – Men may tell lie but the documents cannot -- Mark ‘A’, a note on the letter-pad written by Doctor that the testator was fit to make a statement is of no help as the doctor neither signed the original Will nor signed the register of Petition Writer -- Such like note written on his letter pad can be written later on -- Even the Petition Writer did not mention the place of scribing the document in his register -- No Ration Card, Voter Card, Joint Photograph of the beneficiary family or any other document has been brought on record to prove that testator was residing with beneficiary or that he or his family was rendering services to her -- No special reason has been mentioned in the Will to exclude the other heirs -- Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Nachhattar Singh v. Angrez Kaur, 2011(2) L.A.R. 46 (P&H).

Writ jurisdiction

Acquisition of land -- Limitation – In relation to the land acquisition proceedings, the Court should be loathe to encourage stale litigation as the same might hinder projects of public importance – Courts are expected to be very cautious and circumspect about exercising their discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution if there has been inordinate unexplained delay in questioning the validity of acquisition of land. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai v. M. Meiyappan & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 284 (SC).

Acquisition of land -- Limitation -- Writ petition filed 16 years after the award was announced by the Collector, must fail -- It is trite law that delay and laches is one of the important factors which the High Court must bear in mind while exercising discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution -- High Court must refuse to invoke its extra-ordinary jurisdiction and grant relief to the writ petitioner. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai v. M. Meiyappan & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 284 (SC).

Appointment of Lambardar -- Criminal case – Acquittal from – Appointed candidate was tried in criminal case, however, was acquitted by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class much before Lambardari became open -- Revenue officers appointed him Lambardar, after considering his better merit -- No ground to judicially review the orders, in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Talwinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab & others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 6 (P&H).

Appointment of Lambardar -- Land-holding -- Minor exaggeration in – Choice of the Collector has been upheld by the Financial Commissioner, as the Collector is required to take work from the Lambardar -- No such demerit, such as, pendency of a criminal case or unauthorized occupation of Panchayat land has been pointed out in the case of respondent -- In regard to land holding, minor exaggeration on the part of respondent cannot be a sufficient circumstance to interfere in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction and judicially review the impugned order. Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 52 (P&H).

Mutation -- Mutation proceedings – Challenge to -- Writ petition arising out of summary proceedings of mutation should ordinarily be not entertained and parties should be left to get their respective title decided in a suit for declaration. Shamsher Singh v. Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 524 (P&H).

Suspension of Sarpanch – Review of – Sarpanch was suspended, on account of allegations of illegal possession of her husband on shamilat land -- Illegal possession purportedly had been removed and therefore, application for reinstatement was filed – Sarpanch was reinstated, however, with the stipulation that regular enquiry would be conducted by District Revenue Officer -- Suspension or reinstatement is a temporary measure during the pendency of a regular enquiry -- If misconduct is established after regular enquiry, surely, the authorities would take action as per law -- No interference against an interim arrangement is called for, in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Lakhmi Chand v. State of Haryana & others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 40 (P&H).

Suspension of Sarpanch/Panch – Regular Enquiry – Since regular inquiry is pending against the petitioner, therefore, the court not inclined to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to see the correctness of the suspension order on the basis of preliminary inquiry, wherein petitioner was prima facie found guilty for the charges. Gurcharan Singh, Sarpanch v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 535 (P&H).

Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Three storeyed building over 10 Marla plot is permissible -- Mere fact that only ground floor was constructed at the time of letting out the premises to the tenant, will not be sufficient to infer that the landlord has granted right to use terrace as well -- Tenant does not have any right over the terrace of the ground floor on a building which admits construction of three floors -- Tenant is restrained from interfering in the enjoyment of the first and second floors of the building with all amenities. Smt. Vinit Khera v. Sewa Singh, 2011(2) L.A.R. 277 (P&H).

Section 8-A -- Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, Rule 6 – Show cause notice -- A show cause notice is not necessarily an inviolable principle; It is unnecessary when the party knows that he has not obtained a vested right in the subject matter. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Section 8-A -- Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, Rule 6 – Public auction – Setting aside of -- Show cause notice – Requirement of -- If there had been an outright sale of the property and the person, who conducts the auction was himself competent to conclude the contract and a contract had been concluded/confirmed, a decision to annul the contract could not be made without giving a notice to the person to explain the same and to take a decision of the basis on such objections. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Section 8-A -- Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, Rule 6 – Public auction – Setting aside of -- Show cause notice – Requirement of -- Where an auction is subject to a confirmation by another authority, a person that bids at the auction ought to know that by the mere fact that he has made the highest bid does not conclude the contract and if a decision is taken by yet another officer not to confirm the sale, such a decision need not be put to the party before a decision is taken -- It is not the same thing as to state that a sanctioning authority may take an arbitrary decision -- Validity of such a decision will still be a subject to judicial review. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Section 8-A -- Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, Rule 6 – Public auction – Setting aside of -- Show cause notice – Requirement of -- If, the auction had been set aside attributing any practice of fraud or collusion against any of the petitioners, they would be justified in stating that decision without putting them on notice of such decision was illegal -- Auction is being set aside on existence of some supervening events that had a bearing on the unjustness of the result of the auction in which the petitioners had themselves no part -- Loss of property is itself not the prejudice -- Prejudice shall be to show how the notice would have made a difference. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Section 8-A -- Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, Rule 6 – Show cause notice -- Detailed procedure to show cause notice before a resumption was made, it is in the context of how a person, who obtains an allotment and who comes upon the property, is made to vacate the property and such a decision, which will have an immediate effect on a right to hold on to possession, could not be made without a transparent process that involves the affected party to show cause as to why the extreme action shall not be taken. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Section 8-A -- Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, Rule 6 – Public auction – Higher bid in a week -- If there was an offer within a week by yet another person for a price above what was offered in this case for the property, it only showed that it would have been prudent to keep back the property from sale without offering it for public when the market forces were pulling the prices down. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Section 8-A -- Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, Rule 6 – Public auction – Setting aside of – Auction purchasers have not invested any big sums -- Their deposits were in terms of a few lakhs and they have not had the benefit of possession all the years -- If the sales were allowed to stand, the private individuals would come to enormous benefit that would benefit only them -- If, on the other hand, the sales were to be set aside, it would make possible for realisation of over Rs.50 crores for the property by Administration – Setting aside of auction upheld, auction purchaser would be entitled to refund of their moneys with interest @24% per annum. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Section 8-A -- Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, Rule 6 – Public auction – Setting aside of -- Sales had not been approved and sale deeds had not been executed in the manner contemplated in the Rules -- Consideration for the property had not been paid in full – Auction purchaser had not taken possession and the property had not been put to use by the petitioners -- It is not a case where the auction purchasers had to close down business by the action of the Administration – Auction purchaser could no more than complain of loss of hypothetical profits, if the property had been sold, if the property had been delivered possession, if the property had been put to use for the business, if profits had accrued and a host of imponderables – Auction sale shall be cancelled. Col. Pirthi Pal Singh Gill and others v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh through its Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Section 8-A -- Punjab Capital (Development and Regulation) Building Rules, 1952, Rule 28-C -- Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973, Rule 20-A – Use of Basement storey -- Breach of terms and conditions -- Resumption and forfeiture – Natural justice -- Contention that appellant is using the premises as a godown, in which no public dealing was taking place and that the appellant was not given hearing by the Estate Officer and thus, the appellant is entitled to an opportunity to show that the use of premises as godown was permissible – Contention rejected as order of the Estate Officer specifically states that the owner as well as the occupier were served notice -- Estate Officer inspected the premises -- Moreover, the appellant appeared before the appellate authority through counsel and his view point was duly considered and plea of the appellant was rejected on merits -- Again, the revisional authority considered the view point of the appellant on merits -- There is, thus, no prejudice to the appellant as far as principles of natural justice are concerned -- Concurrent finding of fact recorded by the three authorities holding that use of premises was not in accordance with statutory rules prohibiting commercial activity in the basement, upheld. Manoj B. Nangia v. Chandigarh Administration & others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 585 (P&H DB).

Bonafide need

Must not be immediate – Punjab Rent Act -- It is not the requirement of the law that in order to succeed u/s 13 (3) of the Act, the landlord's need must be an immediate and an existing one on the very date of application of ejectment and he is entitled to anticipate his requirement in a reasonably foreseeable future. J.G. Kohli’s case, AIR 1976 Punjab and Haryana 107 relied. Sant Kumar and another v. R.S. Virk and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 500 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Every landlord has every right to increase the income neither tenant not Rent Controller can dictate that landlady should feel satisfied on the pension being received by the husband of the landlady. Rajinder Parshad v. Rajinder Kaur, 2011(2) L.A.R. 290 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Eviction petition – Petition under wrong provision – Effect of -- Contention that to evict a tenant from the rented land the provisions applicable would be Section 13(iii)(b) of the Act, and not Section 13(3-A) under which rent petition was filed -- Once it is not in dispute, that the procedure for eviction u/s 13(3-A) of the Act, is same, it would hardly make a difference, if in the heading of the petition a provision is mentioned instead of another -- Contention could have only been accepted, in case the procedure under Section 13(3-A) of the Act, would have been different i.e. summary procedure, which would have given undue advantage to the landlord to seek eviction -- Once it is only the right given wherein the party has to prove his case of personal necessity in terms of section 13 of the Act it would not make any difference if the petition filed u/s 13(3-A) of the Act is to be taken u/s 13(iii)(b). Siri Ram & another v. Gopal Krishan Sharma, 2011(2) L.A.R. 54 (P&H).

Rent Act -- If landlord does not want to share a residence with his other brothers because of some estrange relations between the wives of the brothers and because of shortage of the accommodation in the joint residential house then landlord has every right to shift to his independent house to reside peacefully -- Tenant cannot dictate the landlord that landlord should keep on residing in the joint house with the family of his brothers – Need set up by the landlord is wholly proved. United Commercial Bank and another v. Lalit Bahri and another, 2011(2) L.A.R. 559 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Need of the landlady is genuine and bona fide to establish the coaching classes for the increase of monthly income of the husband after his retirement -- It is not open to the tenant to say that there is open place where new construction can be raised to start coaching class -- Suitability of the accommodation as per the requirement of the landlady is a personal decision of the landlady which cannot be said to be wrong by the tenant or Rent Controller. Rajinder Parshad v. Rajinder Kaur, 2011(2) L.A.R. 290 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Pleadings – Amendment in -- By way of amendment, landlord only wants to bring on record the additional facts regarding the availability of additional accommodation to him which has come into existence after filing of the petition – Landlord is to show that he requires the demised premises for his own use and he is not occupying any such shop in the urban area concerned for the purpose of business or any other such demised premises and he has not vacated such premises without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act in the urban area concerned -- Amendment sought by the petitioner, does not, in any manner allow the petitioner to fill in the aforesaid lacuna -- Rather, it may be noticed that the aforesaid fact of availability of additional accommodation to the petitioner shall be helpful to the Rent Controller to reach to the conclusion with regard to the need of the personal bona fide need of the landlord in an effective manner – Prayer for amendment by the landlord is allowed. Sunil Badhan v. Tarsem Singh, 2011(2) L.A.R. 660 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Presumption -- Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide, rather, Rent Controller must proceed on the presumption that requirement is bona fide. Rajinder Parshad v. Rajinder Kaur, 2011(2) L.A.R. 290 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Revisional Jurisdiction -- Both the Courts below recorded concurrent finding of fact in favour of the landlord that need is bona fide and genuine, the same should not be disturbed while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. United Commercial Bank and another v. Lalit Bahri and another, 2011(2) L.A.R. 559 (P&H). 

Rent Act -- Sale of property – Effect of -- Merely because certain properties were sold by the landlady, when husband of the landlady was in service, will not make landlady disentitled to seek eviction of the tenant to start coaching classes after the retirement of the husband of the landlady. Rajinder Parshad v. Rajinder Kaur, 2011(2) L.A.R. 290 (P&H).