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).