Allotment of land

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Shamilat  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(2) L.A.R. 669 (P&H DB).

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Shamilat 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(2) L.A.R. 669 (P&H DB).

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(5)(ii)(a) (as inserted by Haryana Act No.13 of 1996) – Non-payment of installments – Applicability of Section 2(g)(5)(ii)(a) -- As per the Government Instructions, the petitioner was required to make the installments towards the balance amount in 15 half yearly equal installments which were to start after two harvests from the date of the delivery of the physical possession – Petitioner failed to make the installments inspite of having taken over the actual physical possession of the land and being aware of the fact that the earnest money as well as the land was liable to be forfeited – Order was passed forfeiting the amount and also resuming the land on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited the overdue installments -- Contention of the petitioner that the land was required to revert back to him as the same was allotted to him prior to 1985, need not to be gone into. Mohinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 596 (P&H).