Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Possession taken by Authority – State Government had acquired the land by issuing notification u/s 4 read with Section 17(1) and (4), which was followed by a declaration issued u/s 6(1) read with Section 17(1) -- Concerned revenue authorities took possession of the acquired land, which has already been utilized for implementing Residential Scheme – Once it is held that possession of the acquired land was handed over to the BDA, the view taken by the High Court that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to non-compliance of Section 11A cannot be sustained. Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 645 (SC).
Friday, 30 September 2011
Award not passed within 2 years
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Possession taken by Authority – State Government had acquired the land by issuing notification u/s 4 read with Section 17(1) and (4), which was followed by a declaration issued u/s 6(1) read with Section 17(1) -- Concerned revenue authorities took possession of the acquired land, which has already been utilized for implementing Residential Scheme – Once it is held that possession of the acquired land was handed over to the BDA, the view taken by the High Court that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to non-compliance of Section 11A cannot be sustained. Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 645 (SC).
Application for correction before Director, Consolidation
East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 -- Maintainability of Application -- As per Section 43-A of the Act, an application for making correction in an order passed by any officer under the Act, lies only before the authority, who passed such an order – Instead of filing an application before the Consolidation Officer for making correction, the application was filed before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, who did not commit any mistake, but only affirmed the order, which was passed by the Consolidation Officer -- Application u/s 43-A of the Act, filed before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, was not maintainable. Karnail Singh v. The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 398 (P&H DB).
Alienate/allotment of evacuee land
Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 – Asstt. Settlement Officer (S)-cum-Managing Officer decided to transfer the land in favour of the petitioner -- Once a competent officer had already directed to transfer the land, State Govt. or its Secretary has no jurisdiction to transfer the evacuee agriculture land under the Act. Kartar Chand v. Financial Commissioner, Appeal, Punjab and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 127 (P&H).
Appointment of Lambardar
Character of the candidate -- Petitioner, being son of former-deceased Lambardar did not, for more than 30 years, inform the authorities about the death of his father, rather, he undertook to collect the land revenue, etc., without any authority from the competent authority – Petitioner is 70 years old – A person like the petitioner, if allowed to be appointed as Lambardar, would not make a good choice. Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab
Choice of Collector – Appellate Court’s Jurisdiction -- After considering the merits of the candidates, the Collector appointed the Lambardar -- Commissioner accepted the appeal in abject disregard to the limits of his jurisdiction as an appellate court and proceeded to reverse the order passed by the Collector by imposing his perception of the better candidate – Commissioner lost sight of a fundamental principle that governs selection of a Lambardar namely; that the choice of the Collector is final, except where it is palpably perverse, arbitrary, preposterous or contrary to the rules -- Financial Commissioner rightly restored the order passed by the Collector Kulwinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 201 (P&H).
Choice of Collector -- It is an accepted practice in lambardari cases that other things being equal, the choice of the District Collector has to be respected unless and until there was something patently wrong with the order. Rajinder Singh v. Pipal Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 88 (FC Pb.).
Comparative merits -- Appellate Authority’s Jurisdiction -- Collector appointed candidate who is substantially younger in age, being 40 years of age, whereas the petitioner is 52 years of age – Land holding is also 39 kanals 9 marlas in the village as against the 25 kanals of the petitioner – Appointed candidate also has experience as Sarbrah Lambardar, being nephew of the deceased Lambardar – The other criteria’s are by and large comparable -- Discretion exercised by the District Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar has to be accepted, in case it does not suffer from arbitrariness or perverse exercise of power – Held, the District Collector has taken into account the relevant merit factors, the Commissioner, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, committed an illegality in interfering with the same. Ranjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandary, Punjab & Ors., 2011(1) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).
Conduct of candidate -- Petitioner is residing in other village -- Petitioner has got prepared his ration card and voter list in both villages which puts question mark on his trustworthiness – District Collector rightly ignored the petitioner – Collector’s order confirmed by Commissioner -- No illegality/irregularity or any perversity in the order of lower revenue Courts. Sukhdev Raj v. Ranjit Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 84 (FC Pb.).
Defaulter of loan -- Collector appointed the candidate, who had mortgaged his property and is defaulter of loan -- Commissioner has rightly set aside the order of District Collector and appointed respondent as Lambardar. Gurnam Singh v. Ajaib Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 665 (FC Pb.).
Educational Qualification – Consideration of -- Collector, being the appointing authority, was required to consider the relative merits, in the context of educational qualification, for discharge of duties by the incumbent Lambardar, as provided under Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab
Exercise of discretion by the Collector is always preferred – High Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the view expressed by the departmental authorities. Ruldu Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 82 (P&H DB).
Financial Commissioner and the Commissioner have taken into account the comparative merit of both the persons -- Petitioner is 49 years of age, appointed candidate is 28 years of age -- Both the candidates are matriculates -- In addition, appointed candidate has donated blood and is President of Guru Ravidas Mandir of the village and therefore, has been found to be serving the society – No reason to judicially review the well founded orders passed by the authorities. Raj Kumar v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 159 (P&H).
Heart Patient – Merely that a person is a heart patient is not sufficient to deprive him of the appointment unless the ailment is to such an extent that he is unable to perform duty. Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 432 (P&H).
Hereditary claim -- As the Collector granted the benefit of hereditary claim to the petitioner and ignored the better qualifications of respondent, the Commissioner rightly set aside the appointment of the petitioner and appointed respondent as the Lambardar. Satish Kumar v. State of Haryana
Hereditary claim – In Karnail Singh’s case, 1973 PLJ 676 it was held by Division Bench that preferential right to appointment on the basis of his hereditary claim is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution – Findings in Harsharan Singh's case, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 909 that precedence is to be accorded to hereditary claims being contrary to the Division Bench judgment cannot be cited as a binding precedent. Satish Kumar v. State of Haryana
Hereditary claim -- Petitioner’s father was sarbrah lambardar and his grand-father was a lambardar, but he had no experience of working as a lambardar – Accordingly, petitioner’s inheridatory claim for lambardari was not required to be taken into consideration. Rajinder Singh v. Pipal Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 88 (FC Pb.).
Jurisdiction of Appellate/ Revisional Authority -- Collector being a revenue officer at the district level is best aware of requirement of appointment of Lambardar for a particular village considering the comparative merit of the candidates who appear before him -- Unless discretion has been exercised perversely, arbitrarily or for malafide reasons, the order is not required to be interfered with. Krishan Lal v. Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandry, Punjab & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 243 (P&H).
Land ownership – Requirement of -- Petitioner failed to show that he owned land in his name on the day when the applications for the post of Lambardar were called -- His father may have owned land in that revenue estate, but rules demand that the interested candidate must own land in that revenue to which the post of Lambardar pertains -- Petitioner fails this basic test -- Appointment of respondent as Lambardar upheld. Jasbir Singh v. Joginder Pal, 2011(1) L.A.R. 377 (FC Pb.).
Panch of Village – Member Panchayat -- Rule 15 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules does not provide for any disability to be appointed as Lambardar, in case such a person is a Member Panchayat -- Rather, it would be a qualification if the person has personal influence, character and ability -- Panch of the village indicates better qualification, in terms of Rule 15 (d) and (e). Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab
Qualification -- Land holdings -- Basic qualification equal, respondent has substantially more land as compared to the petitioner viz. 54 kanal more than the petitioner -- It is a relevant criteria to be considered in exercise of discretion and calls for no interference. Krishan Lal v. Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandry, Punjab & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 243 (P&H).
Review – Power to review can only be exercised if conferred by statute or by rule -- In the absence of any provision in the Chowkidara Rules, conferring the power of review upon the S.D.M. or upon the D.C. to grant a permission to review an order, they cannot pass such orders – SDM and the D.C passed the orders under a mistaken belief that they are exercising powers under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, which confers such a power -- Review orders are a nullity and must, therefore, be set aside. Gurjant Singh v. Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 199 (P&H).
Sarbrah Lambardar – Merely because the appellant has been working as a Sarbrah Lambardar would not be a sole factor to nullify the other relevant consideration. Ruldu Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 82 (P&H DB).
Serving employee – Suitability of -- District Collector held that petitioner is working in P.S.E.B. cannot remain available to the villagers on Lambardari job, and therefore, is not a suitable candidate for the post – Finding upheld by Commissioner and Financial Commissioner -- Petitioner is serving on a transferable post, no reason to differ with the findings. Tek Singh v. State of Punjab & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 165 (P&H).
Speaking order – Collector passed the order for appointment of Lambardar, however particulars of the other candidate not taken into consideration while making appointment – Comparative merits of both the candidates not considered – Financial Commissioner remanded the case back to Collector – No legal flaw in the order of Financial Commissioner. Het Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 308 (P&H).
Summoning in a criminal complaint for a cognizable offence in which the police did not take any action cannot be considered to be an incident serious enough to ignore the claim -- If conviction is recorded, the revenue authorities would surely take into account the said fact. Ran Singh v. State of Punjab & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 157 (P&H).
Teacher – Candidature of -- Lambardar is required to remain present, by and large at all hours, in the village for discharge of his duties -- In case the petitioner is appointed as Lambardar, other than the fact that he is required to serve as teacher for fixed hours during the day and is serving on transferable post, he might not be available so as to effectively discharge the duties, as given out in Rule 20, which require day to day presence in the area -- Petitioner might be eligible, however, he is not suitable for being appointed as Lambardar. Bhag Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 413 (P&H).
Where the choice of the Collector is perverse, arbitrary or violative of any rule, it cannot be final and may, circumstances so permitting be rectified by appellate or revisional authorities. Satish Kumar v. State of Haryana
Appointment of Lambardar
Character of the candidate -- Petitioner, being son of former-deceased Lambardar did not, for more than 30 years, inform the authorities about the death of his father, rather, he undertook to collect the land revenue, etc., without any authority from the competent authority – Petitioner is 70 years old – A person like the petitioner, if allowed to be appointed as Lambardar, would not make a good choice. Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab
Choice of Collector – Appellate Court’s Jurisdiction -- After considering the merits of the candidates, the Collector appointed the Lambardar -- Commissioner accepted the appeal in abject disregard to the limits of his jurisdiction as an appellate court and proceeded to reverse the order passed by the Collector by imposing his perception of the better candidate – Commissioner lost sight of a fundamental principle that governs selection of a Lambardar namely; that the choice of the Collector is final, except where it is palpably perverse, arbitrary, preposterous or contrary to the rules -- Financial Commissioner rightly restored the order passed by the Collector Kulwinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 201 (P&H).
Choice of Collector -- It is an accepted practice in lambardari cases that other things being equal, the choice of the District Collector has to be respected unless and until there was something patently wrong with the order. Rajinder Singh v. Pipal Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 88 (FC Pb.).
Comparative merits -- Appellate Authority’s Jurisdiction -- Collector appointed candidate who is substantially younger in age, being 40 years of age, whereas the petitioner is 52 years of age – Land holding is also 39 kanals 9 marlas in the village as against the 25 kanals of the petitioner – Appointed candidate also has experience as Sarbrah Lambardar, being nephew of the deceased Lambardar – The other criteria’s are by and large comparable -- Discretion exercised by the District Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar has to be accepted, in case it does not suffer from arbitrariness or perverse exercise of power – Held, the District Collector has taken into account the relevant merit factors, the Commissioner, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, committed an illegality in interfering with the same. Ranjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandary, Punjab & Ors., 2011(1) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).
Conduct of candidate -- Petitioner is residing in other village -- Petitioner has got prepared his ration card and voter list in both villages which puts question mark on his trustworthiness – District Collector rightly ignored the petitioner – Collector’s order confirmed by Commissioner -- No illegality/irregularity or any perversity in the order of lower revenue Courts. Sukhdev Raj v. Ranjit Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 84 (FC Pb.).
Defaulter of loan -- Collector appointed the candidate, who had mortgaged his property and is defaulter of loan -- Commissioner has rightly set aside the order of District Collector and appointed respondent as Lambardar. Gurnam Singh v. Ajaib Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 665 (FC Pb.).
Educational Qualification – Consideration of -- Collector, being the appointing authority, was required to consider the relative merits, in the context of educational qualification, for discharge of duties by the incumbent Lambardar, as provided under Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab
Exercise of discretion by the Collector is always preferred – High Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the view expressed by the departmental authorities. Ruldu Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 82 (P&H DB).
Financial Commissioner and the Commissioner have taken into account the comparative merit of both the persons -- Petitioner is 49 years of age, appointed candidate is 28 years of age -- Both the candidates are matriculates -- In addition, appointed candidate has donated blood and is President of Guru Ravidas Mandir of the village and therefore, has been found to be serving the society – No reason to judicially review the well founded orders passed by the authorities. Raj Kumar v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 159 (P&H).
Heart Patient – Merely that a person is a heart patient is not sufficient to deprive him of the appointment unless the ailment is to such an extent that he is unable to perform duty. Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 432 (P&H).
Hereditary claim -- As the Collector granted the benefit of hereditary claim to the petitioner and ignored the better qualifications of respondent, the Commissioner rightly set aside the appointment of the petitioner and appointed respondent as the Lambardar. Satish Kumar v. State of Haryana
Hereditary claim – In Karnail Singh’s case, 1973 PLJ 676 it was held by Division Bench that preferential right to appointment on the basis of his hereditary claim is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution – Findings in Harsharan Singh's case, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 909 that precedence is to be accorded to hereditary claims being contrary to the Division Bench judgment cannot be cited as a binding precedent. Satish Kumar v. State of Haryana
Hereditary claim -- Petitioner’s father was sarbrah lambardar and his grand-father was a lambardar, but he had no experience of working as a lambardar – Accordingly, petitioner’s inheridatory claim for lambardari was not required to be taken into consideration. Rajinder Singh v. Pipal Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 88 (FC Pb.).
Jurisdiction of Appellate/ Revisional Authority -- Collector being a revenue officer at the district level is best aware of requirement of appointment of Lambardar for a particular village considering the comparative merit of the candidates who appear before him -- Unless discretion has been exercised perversely, arbitrarily or for malafide reasons, the order is not required to be interfered with. Krishan Lal v. Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandry, Punjab & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 243 (P&H).
Land ownership – Requirement of -- Petitioner failed to show that he owned land in his name on the day when the applications for the post of Lambardar were called -- His father may have owned land in that revenue estate, but rules demand that the interested candidate must own land in that revenue to which the post of Lambardar pertains -- Petitioner fails this basic test -- Appointment of respondent as Lambardar upheld. Jasbir Singh v. Joginder Pal, 2011(1) L.A.R. 377 (FC Pb.).
Panch of Village – Member Panchayat -- Rule 15 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules does not provide for any disability to be appointed as Lambardar, in case such a person is a Member Panchayat -- Rather, it would be a qualification if the person has personal influence, character and ability -- Panch of the village indicates better qualification, in terms of Rule 15 (d) and (e). Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab
Qualification -- Land holdings -- Basic qualification equal, respondent has substantially more land as compared to the petitioner viz. 54 kanal more than the petitioner -- It is a relevant criteria to be considered in exercise of discretion and calls for no interference. Krishan Lal v. Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandry, Punjab & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 243 (P&H).
Review – Power to review can only be exercised if conferred by statute or by rule -- In the absence of any provision in the Chowkidara Rules, conferring the power of review upon the S.D.M. or upon the D.C. to grant a permission to review an order, they cannot pass such orders – SDM and the D.C passed the orders under a mistaken belief that they are exercising powers under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, which confers such a power -- Review orders are a nullity and must, therefore, be set aside. Gurjant Singh v. Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 199 (P&H).
Sarbrah Lambardar – Merely because the appellant has been working as a Sarbrah Lambardar would not be a sole factor to nullify the other relevant consideration. Ruldu Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 82 (P&H DB).
Serving employee – Suitability of -- District Collector held that petitioner is working in P.S.E.B. cannot remain available to the villagers on Lambardari job, and therefore, is not a suitable candidate for the post – Finding upheld by Commissioner and Financial Commissioner -- Petitioner is serving on a transferable post, no reason to differ with the findings. Tek Singh v. State of Punjab & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 165 (P&H).
Speaking order – Collector passed the order for appointment of Lambardar, however particulars of the other candidate not taken into consideration while making appointment – Comparative merits of both the candidates not considered – Financial Commissioner remanded the case back to Collector – No legal flaw in the order of Financial Commissioner. Het Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 308 (P&H).
Summoning in a criminal complaint for a cognizable offence in which the police did not take any action cannot be considered to be an incident serious enough to ignore the claim -- If conviction is recorded, the revenue authorities would surely take into account the said fact. Ran Singh v. State of Punjab & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 157 (P&H).
Teacher – Candidature of -- Lambardar is required to remain present, by and large at all hours, in the village for discharge of his duties -- In case the petitioner is appointed as Lambardar, other than the fact that he is required to serve as teacher for fixed hours during the day and is serving on transferable post, he might not be available so as to effectively discharge the duties, as given out in Rule 20, which require day to day presence in the area -- Petitioner might be eligible, however, he is not suitable for being appointed as Lambardar. Bhag Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 413 (P&H).
Where the choice of the Collector is perverse, arbitrary or violative of any rule, it cannot be final and may, circumstances so permitting be rectified by appellate or revisional authorities. Satish Kumar v. State of Haryana
Writ jurisdiction
Appointment of Lambardar – Financial Commissioner and the Commissioner have taken into account the comparative merit of both the persons -- Petitioner is 49 years of age, appointed candidate is 28 years of age -- Both the candidates are matriculates -- In addition, appointed candidate has donated blood and is President of Guru Ravidas Mandir of the village and therefore, has been found to be serving the society – No reason to judicially review the well founded orders passed by the authorities. Raj Kumar v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 159 (P&H).
Provisional Rent – Non-tender of rent
Rent Act -- If the tenant fails to pay the provisionally assessed rent on the date fixed by the learned Rent Controller, then he makes himself liable to be evicted. Rakesh Wadhawan’s case 2002(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 514 and Rajan alias Raj Kumar’s case 2010(2) PLR 201 relied. Madan Lal and another v. Tek Chand Sharma, 2011(1) L.A.R. 554 (P&H).
Provisional Rent – Non-tender of
Rent Act -- Noting of wrong date – Effect of – Contention that rent could not be tendered because inadvertently the date of hearing was wrongly noted as 20.10.2010 instead of 12.10.2010, due to which neither the tenants nor their counsel could appear before the learned Rent Controller – Held, no application was moved by the tenants before the learned Rent Controller on 20.10.2010 for the purpose of tendering the arrears of rent -- No occasion to grant them any opportunity for the purpose of tendering the rent – Tenants liable to be evicted. Madan Lal and another v. Tek Chand Sharma, 2011(1) L.A.R. 554 (P&H).
Will
Suspicious circumstances -- No bar to date or name of witness being written in hand on otherwise typed Will -- Mention of Advocate having drafted Will did not create any suspicion -- Beneficiaries are all the sons -- Merely because one of the sons collected will from registration office did not create any suspicion. Sukhdeep Singh Bajwa and another v. General Public and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 91 (P&H DB).
Assessment by Rent Controller -- Arrears of rent – Extension of time
Rent Act -- Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the time to make deposit of the amount as assessed by the Rent Controller beyond the period already fixed by the Rent Controller while assessing the rent -- Tenant is bound to make payment, there is no question for extension of time. Sudhir Kumar v. Kuldip Singh Malhotra, 2011(1) L.A.R. 96 (P&H).
Arrears of Rent
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 -- Sufficient cause -- Ejectment –Where the tenant is able to prove that he had sufficient cause for not paying the rent for any period, he can get rid of the consequence of ejectment provided in Section 9(1)(ii) of the 1953 Act. Subhash Chand v. State of Haryana
Arrears of Rent
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 -- Sufficient cause -- Ejectment –Where the tenant is able to prove that he had sufficient cause for not paying the rent for any period, he can get rid of the consequence of ejectment provided in Section 9(1)(ii) of the 1953 Act. Subhash Chand v. State of Haryana
Amendment in pleadings
Punjab Rent Act -- NRI landlord – Leave to defend -- Tenant has not averred in the application for amendment as to when he came to know about the fact which he wanted to incorporate in his application under Section 18-A of the Act -- In the absence of the material particulars about the time when the petitioner allegedly came to know about the alleged subsequent event -- Amendment is wholly frivolous and has been rightly declined by the Rent Controller. Anil Kumar Sharma v. Barjinder Singh Mann, 2011(1) L.A.R. 620 (P&H).
Doctrine of Estoppels
Admission of tenancy
Question of title – Petitioner raised a considered and conscious plea that he is a tenant of the Gram Panchayat on payment of 15% per annum as 'Chakota' (rent) -- Petitioner, obtained an injunction, on the basis of this plea of tenancy -- Petitioner is barred by the doctrine of estoppels from raising of plea of ownership. Harnek Singh v. Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 407 (P&H).
Thursday, 29 September 2011
In case where there is a lease of an agricultural land, provisions of Section 107 of the T.P. Act, 1882 would not be applicable
Registration of Lease deed – In case where there is a lease of an agricultural land, provisions of Section 107 of the T.P. Act, 1882 would not be applicable -- If the document is not registered, same is admissible in evidence. Shyam Lal v. Deepa Dass Chela Ram Chela Garib Dass, 2011(1) L.A.R. 266 (P&H).
Limitation
Suit challenging civil court decree
Limitation to challenge the decree passed by the civil Court is three years, from the date of passing of decree, or in the alternative from the date of knowledge. Sher Singh and another v. Siri Kishan and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 443 (P&H).
Summoning in criminal case
Appointment of Lambardar – Summoning in a criminal complaint for a cognizable offence in which the police did not take any action cannot be considered to be an incident serious enough to ignore the claim -- If at all, any conviction is recorded, the revenue authorities would surely take into account the said fact. Ran Singh v. State of Punjab & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 157 (P&H).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)