Abolition of Post of Lambardar
Age-old institution of Lambardar is an integral and significant part of the revenue system and cannot possibly be severed from the scheme, as contemplated under the Act and relevant Rules -- Mere enactment of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the fact that some of the Lambardars are involved in criminal cases, ipso facto, are not the cogent grounds to abolish the significant integral and ancient institution of Lambardars. Satpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 636 (P&H).
Power/Jurisdiction of High Court -- High Court did not have the power/jurisdiction to direct the State Government to amend the Act/relevant Rules to abolish the age-old very important institution of the Lambardar and to further amend the other relevant Acts to assign the duties to the Panchayati Raj Act/Institutions in this relevant connection. Satpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 636 (P&H).
Acceptance of award amount
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Reference for enhancement – Effect of --Land transferred to third party – Challenge to -- Landowners may not be having any serious objection to the acquisition of their land for a public purpose and, therefore, some of them not only accepted the compensation, but also filed applications u/s 18 of the Act for determination of market value by the Court -- However, when it was discovered that the acquired land has been transferred to private persons, they sought intervention of the Court and High Court nullified the acquisition on the ground of fraud and misuse of the provisions of the Act -- It cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the High Court to entertain and decide the writ petition filed by writ petitioner on merits is vitiated by any patent legal infirmity. M/s. Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and another v. G. Jayarama Reddy and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 481 (SC).
Acquisition of land
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Acceptance of award amount – Reference for enhancement – Land transferred to third party – Challenge to -- Landowners may not be having any serious objection to the acquisition of their land for a public purpose and, therefore, some of them not only accepted the compensation, but also filed applications u/s 18 of the Act for determination of market value by the Court -- However, when it was discovered that the acquired land has been transferred to private persons, they sought intervention of the Court and High Court nullified the acquisition on the ground of fraud and misuse of the provisions of the Act -- It cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the High Court to entertain and decide the writ petition filed by writ petitioner on merits is vitiated by any patent legal infirmity. M/s. Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and another v. G. Jayarama Reddy and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 481 (SC).
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Delay and laches -- Notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued on 27.8.1993 – Declaration u/s 6 was made on 7.8.1996 and an award was made on 7.1.1998 -- Paper possession of the land in question was taken on 9.3.1998 and possession was handed over to the Corporation on 16.7.1998 -- Petition challenging the validity of the declaration u/s 6 -- Held, petition had been filed at a belated stage, if the land owners were really aggrieved by the declaration u/s 6, they ought to have challenged the same immediately after the declaration – No interference with the acquisition proceedings required. A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corpn. Ltd. v. Chinthamaneni Narasimha Rao & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 565 (SC).
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Interest -- Letter dated 17.2.1995 written by Deputy Chief Engineer (Southern Railway) to the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) indicating that possession of the acquired land had been taken on 11.3.1985 – Held, the letter of the Deputy Chief Engineer is conclusive of the date on which possession was taken, i.e. 11.3.1985 and both, the Reference Court and the High Court committed an error by awarding interest with effect from 20.5.1987. R. Saragapani (Dead) through L.Rs. v. The Special Tahsildar, Karur-Dindigul Broadguage Line, 2011(3) L.A.R. 571 (SC).
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Market value – Small sale instances – Reliance upon -- Two sale instances related to a small parcel of land – In the absence of any other exemplar, such sale instance could be relied upon for the purpose of fixing market value of the acquired land, after applying an appropriate cut. R. Saragapani (Dead) through L.Rs. v. The Special Tahsildar, Karur-Dindigul Broadguage Line, 2011(3) L.A.R. 571 (SC).
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Market value of Trees – Valuation of -- Reference Court had relied upon reports of Agricultural Development Officer and the Court Commissioner for the purpose of recording a finding that as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the age of the trees could be 8 to 9 years and in due course even the flowering trees would become fruit bearing trees and yield income for next 60 to 70 years -- High Court totally ignored the two reports and fixed market value of young trees by treating the same as timber – Held, High Court committed an error by upsetting the view taken by the Reference Court on the issue of market value of the trees. R. Saragapani (Dead) through L.Rs. v. The Special Tahsildar, Karur-Dindigul Broadguage Line, 2011(3) L.A.R. 571 (SC).
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Public purpose – Diversification of purpose -- Diversification of the purpose for which land was acquired u/s 4(1) read with Section 6 clearly amounted to a fraud on the power of eminent domain. M/s. Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and another v. G. Jayarama Reddy and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 481 (SC).
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Public purpose -- Land transferred to third party – Challenge to -- Corporation had made a false projection to the State Government that land was needed for execution of tourism related projects -- Corporation candidly admitted that the Corporation did not have the requisite finances to pay for the acquisition of land -- Corporation transferred major portion of the acquired land to private individual and corporate entities – Corporation did not have the jurisdiction to transfer the land acquired for a public purpose to the companies and thereby allow them to bypass the provisions of Part VII -- High Court restored the land to landowners -- No valid ground to interfere with the High Court’s judgment. M/s. Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and another v. G. Jayarama Reddy and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 481 (SC).
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Writ dismissed – Special leave petition dismissed -- Writ on other ground by other landowner – Maintainability of -- Writ petitions filed by the brothers had been dismissed on the ground of delay and the writ appeals and the SLP were dismissed, but that could not be made basis for denying relief because his brothers had neither questioned the diversification of land to private persons nor prayed for restoration of their respective shares -- Special leave petitions were summarily dismissed, such dismissal did not amount to this Court’s approval of the view taken by the High Court on the legality of the acquisition and transfer of land to private persons. M/s. Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and another v. G. Jayarama Reddy and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 481 (SC).
Acquisition of land for District jail
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Urgency provision invoked – Objections – Right of -- Proposal for acquisition of land for the construction of District Jail -- After the lapse of 5 years, the State Government asked District Magistrate to trace availability of lands – Thereafter, it took two years for the State Government to issue notifications u/s 4 and 6, thereby invoking the urgency provisions u/s 17 of the Act -- State Government was not justified to invoke the emergency provision of Section 17(4) of the Act – Landowners cannot be denied of their valuable right u/s 5-A of the Act. Devendra Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 555 (SC).
Acquisition of land for public purpose
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Urgent provisions invoked – Acquisition of the land for public purpose by itself shall not justify the exercise of power of eliminating enquiry under Section 5-A in terms of Section 17 (1) and Section 17 (4) of the Act. Devendra Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 555 (SC).
Acquisition of land for Residential/ Commercial/ Institutional area
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Urgent provisions invoked – Development of residential, commercial, industrial or institutional areas by their intrinsic nature and character contemplates planning, execution and implementation of the schemes which generally takes time of few years – Invoking of urgency provisions under the Act not justified. Devendra Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 555 (SC).
Acquittal from criminal case
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).
Additional evidence
Rent Laws -- Eviction petition -- Additional evidence can be allowed even at the stage of argument i.e. till the Court becomes functuous officio, meaning thereby till the Court signs the judgment, the application can be entertained. Narinder Kumar v. Shri Sat Narayan Mandir through Trust Committee Hindu Panchayati Dharamshala and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 244 (P&H).
Rent Laws -- Eviction petition -- Tenant want to produce sanctioned site plan of the construction raised on the demised premises, order of sanctioning the site plan, two statements of the parties in dispute and an order of the Civil Court – Tenant is trying to produce on record those documents which have not been manufactured by him and are coming from the custody of the authorities either judicial or quasi judicial – Dismissal of the application by Rent Controller is unsustainable. Narinder Kumar v. Shri Sat Narayan Mandir through Trust Committee Hindu Panchayati Dharamshala and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 244 (P&H).
Admissibility of Certified copy of Public document
Compromise, part of the decree is a public document -- A certified copy of a public document is admissible in evidence without being proved by calling witness -- There is presumption as to the genuineness of such certified copy. Jaswant Singh v. Gurdev Singh & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 632 (SC).
Aggrieved party
Suspension of Sarpanch – Removal of Sarpanch – Complainant is an aggrieved person -- Appeal filed by complainant was very much maintainable before the appellate authority. Guddu Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Saunti and other v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 180 (P&H).
Agreement of sale
Scope of -- Transfer of property – Sale deed -- Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of sections 54 and 55 of TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted u/s 53A of TP Act) -- According to TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance -- Section 54 of TP Act enacts that sale of immoveable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject matter. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 593 (SC).
Scope of -- Transfer of property – Sale deed -- Transfer of immoveable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed) -- In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immoveable property can be transferred. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 593 (SC).
Allotment of flat by Society
Challenge to -- Eligibility of Individual – Date of Eligibility – Future acquisition – Effect of -- Petitioner submitted an affidavit on 8.6.1983 to the effect that he or his dependent family member did not own or possess any other residential allotment of a house in Chandigarh, Mohali or Panchkula -- Wife of the petitioner had been allotted a house at reserve price on 15.9.1983 – Held, eligibility of an individual to get a plot has nothing to do so far as future acquisitions are concerned -- Impugned orders cancelling allotment of a plot to the petitioners, quashed. Chandigarh Housing Board’s case 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 640, relied. Jai Bhagwan Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 42 (P&H DB).
Allotment of Government accommodation
Government Residences [Chandigarh Administration General Pool] Allotment Rules, 1996 – Category/post-wise entitlement explained – Held, no new house for any category/post should be earmarked unless the house already earmarked for such category/post has been vacated and placed in the general pool of the Chandigarh Administration for allotment in accordance with the Allotment Rules. Mrs. Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 504 (SC).
Government Residences [Chandigarh Administration General Pool] Allotment Rules, 1996 – Allotment of two houses -- No rule brought to notice or is available on the records providing that an officer who is posted outside Chandigarh/Panchkula/Mohali and whose spouse is not entitled to any Government accommodation of any category can be provided with two houses, one at the District/Division level to which he/she is transferred and another at Chandigarh and its adjourning areas – Held, State shall not allot two different houses to one government servant -- In terms of Rule 11(1)(b), such allotment can be made in some circumstances but that every effort should be made to ensure that such situations arise only in exceptional circumstances -- It will be in the interest of all concerned that Rule 11(1)(b) is invoked sparingly and only by the authorities concerned, upon the recommendation of the House Allotment Committee. Mrs. Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 504 (SC).
Government Residences [Chandigarh Administration General Pool] Allotment Rules, 1996 -- Discretionary Quota -- Out of turn Quota -- Power of Authorities explained -- Powers vested in the concerned authority under Rules 8 and 11 will only be exercised: upon recommendation of the House Allotment Committee; such recommendation should be supported by reasons with the requirements of the job and the data in support thereof; and no allotments would be made under the provisions of Rule 11(1)(e) -- Maximum restriction of 10 per cent of all allotments being Out-of-Turn Allotments, as contemplated under Rule 11(2), shall be operative to entire Rule 11 as well as to Rule 8 -- In no event shall Out-of-Turn Allotment exceed 10 per cent of all houses allotted in a year. Mrs. Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 504 (SC).
Government Residences [Chandigarh Administration General Pool] Allotment Rules, 1996 – Objections – Need of – Publication of list on website -- Held, there is no provision requiring invitation of objections -- Once there is no rule, it will not serve any fruitful purpose to invite objections to each allotment apart from unnecessarily delaying allotments and rendering the working of the Rules more complex and difficult -- Rule 9(5) is a complete safeguard in regard to proper maintenance of the seniority list of the applicants -- Final list of allotments made by the House Allotment Committee should be placed on the website of the Government, as all interested persons would be entitled to know whether they have been allotted the accommodation or not. Mrs. Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 504 (SC).
Government Residences [Chandigarh Administration General Pool] Allotment Rules, 1996 – Retirement of employee – Retention of accommodation – Right of -- Rule 13, sub-rule 5 carves out an exception, allowing the period of retention to be extended beyond the period stated in the table under Rule 13(2) of the Allotment Rules on payment of higher licence fee – Held, there is no reason why a government servant should be permitted to retain the accommodation beyond 4 to 6 months, which period is permissible under the substantive rules -- Rules 13(1) and 13(2) are comprehensive, specific and provide more than reasonable time for a government servant to vacate the accommodation allotted to him/her -- Rule 13(5) not sustainable and the authorities are directed not to take recourse to the said provision under any circumstance -- No case of retention of government accommodation beyond the periods specified in the table to Rule 13(2) of the Allotment Rules shall be entertained by any authority under the Allotment Rules. Mrs. Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 504 (SC).
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, 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).
Allotment of plot
HUDA plot -- Delivery of possession – Encroachment thereafter -- Right of re-allottee – Possession of the plot was delivered to the original allottee free from all encumbrances -- HUDA cannot be blamed for the encroachment, if any, made after possession of the plot was delivered to the original allottee nor the re-allottee could possibly accuse the HUDA of deficiency in service in the matter of allotment of plot on the ground that some people had made encroachment on it -- Finding recorded by the District Forum that there was deficiency in service on the HUDA’s part is erroneous – Order of District Forum for allotment of alternative plot to the re-allottee set aside. Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Viresh Sangwan & Another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 526 (SC).
Allotment of Sites on Lease Hold Basis to Auto Spare Parts Dealers and Auto Repair Mechanics in Chandigarh Scheme, 1999
Clause 4(i) – Allotment of site – Right of -- In the year 1997, when survey was conducted, the appellant was found to be eligible for alternative site – At the time of allotment, the premises owned by the appellant are permitted to be used for the sale of Auto & Spare Parts -- Appellant is not entitled to allotment of alternative site as he is the owner of a site, where the business of Spare Parts can be conducted -- No right much less any vested right can be claimed to have accrued merely on the basis of survey conducted for allotment. Bharat Bhushan v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 303 (P&H DB).
Allotment of tenement
Enhancement of land compensation – Right of Housing Board to recover from allottee -- Housing Board constructed tenements on acquired land -- Allotment made at the price fixed -- Hire Purchase Tenancy agreement stipulated that Board could enhance the price of tenements on receipt of final Bill of construction or there was increase in compensation payable to land owners, however, Board’s power to revise the price of the tenements is hedged with the limitation of 7 years – Land cost increased on account of higher compensation to landowners – Held, Board is not entitled to revise price after 7 years of allotment. Ishwar Dass Nassa and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 545 (SC).
Allotment of two houses
Government Residences [Chandigarh Administration General Pool] Allotment Rules, 1996 – Government accommodation -- No rule brought to notice or is available on the records providing that an officer who is posted outside Chandigarh/Panchkula/Mohali and whose spouse is not entitled to any Government accommodation of any category can be provided with two houses, one at the District/Division level to which he/she is transferred and another at Chandigarh and its adjourning areas – Held, State shall not allot two different houses to one government servant -- In terms of Rule 11(1)(b), such allotment can be made in some circumstances but that every effort should be made to ensure that such situations arise only in exceptional circumstances -- It will be in the interest of all concerned that Rule 11(1)(b) is invoked sparingly and only by the authorities concerned, upon the recommendation of the House Allotment Committee. Mrs. Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 504 (SC).
Alteration in Unprivileged Wills
Any alteration made in an unprivileged Will after its execution has no effect unless such alteration has been executed in the same manner in which the Will is executed -- Such alterations shall be deemed to be duly executed if the signature of the testator and the subscription of the witnesses is made in the margin or on some other part of the Will opposite or near to such alterations or at the foot or end or opposite to a memorandum referring to such alterations and written at the end or some part of the Will. Dayanandi v. Rukma D. Suvarna and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 534 (SC).
Four corrections have been made on pages 1 and 2 of the Will -- Figures written in letters (four) were substituted with numbers (3) and the name of one daughter was scored out (page 2) -- At the end of the Will, the testator appended his left thumb mark -- On the right side of thumb mark a line has been written with the ink pen/ball pen suggesting that the corrections/alterations were made prior to putting of left thumb mark by the testator -- However, the space between the last line of the typed Will and what was written with the ink pen/ball pen leaves no manner of doubt that the writing on the right side of the thumb mark was made after execution of the Will -- If the corrections/alterations had been made before the testator had appended his left thumb mark, there was no reason why the line showing deletion of the name of one daughter and corrections in the figures were not reflected in the typed Will and why the line was inserted in the little space left between the concluding portion of the Will and the space where the left thumb mark was put by the testator – Held, the corrections/alterations made in Will cannot be said to have been duly attested by the testator as per the requirement of Section 71 of the Act and the daughter is entitled to share in the property specified. Dayanandi v. Rukma D. Suvarna and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 534 (SC).
Amendment in written statement
Rent Laws -- Eviction petition -- During the pendency of appeal, the tenant filed an application for seeking amendment in the written statement for adding the ground that the tenant was in possession of a Chaubara as well @ Rs.500/- per month and has paid its rent, but could not take this plea in the written statement – Held, such a plea at the stage of appeal cannot be permitted to be taken by the tenant which was already in the knowledge of tenant at the time when the written statement was filed by him before the learned Rent Controller. Avtar Singh v. Tara Rani, 2011(3) L.A.R. 258 (P&H).
Amendment with retrospective effect
Validity of -- Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Deleting the provision for No Confidence Motion is not unconstitutional -- Section 1(2) of the Act to bring into force the Amendment Act retrospectively from 1.7.2010 is held to be arbitrary and ultravires the Constitution. Nirbhai Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 217 (P&H DB).
Appeal
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 -- Interlocutory orders -- Revision -- Prior to the Harjit Singh Uppal’s judgment, JT 2011(6) SC 236 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was consistent view of the High Court that appeals filed against the order of Rent Controller except u/s 4, 10, 12 and 13 of Rent Act were not appealable and only revision was maintainable before High Court against such orders – Thus, the earlier withdrawal of the appeal to avail the remedy of revision petition cannot come in their way to pursue their remedy of appeal filed before the Appellate Authority. Harish Chand and others v. Anil Kumar, 2011(3) L.A.R. 37 (P&H).
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Appeal in High Court -- Consideration of evidence -- High Court not considered the oral evidence and also not properly analysed the documentary evidence -- High Court proceeded on a wrong notion that the sale deeds of tiny pieces of land could be the determining factor -- There is total misreading of the evidence on record and also misinterpretation of the legal proposition settled – High Court’s order set aside and held that High Court should discharge its duty and responsibility of appreciating the entire evidence on record as it is the last court of appeal -- High Court shall give a proper finding on the basis of both, oral and documentary evidence-- Parties directed to appear before High Court. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer v. Maharani Biswal & Others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 530 (SC).
Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 -- Necessary parties – Non-impleading of -- Appellants having not impleaded all the contesting candidates as respondents in the election petition, the same is liable to be rejected. Smt. Bhajan Kaur and another v. Gurmej Kaur and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 162 (P&H).
Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 -- Question of facts – Jurisdiction of -- Section 100 of the Act provides that the appeal to High court against the order passed by the Tribunal shall be on law as well as on facts -- Appeal is continuation of proceedings, where the question of fact can also be gone into by the Appellate Court -- Order XLI Rule 33 CPC clearly provides that the Appellate Court can deal with the issues which may not have been raised in the appeal filed by the appellant and can grant relief even to the respondents or other party who may not have filed appeal. Smt. Bhajan Kaur and another v. Gurmej Kaur and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 162 (P&H).
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Penalty – Condition for deposit of penalty – Interpretation of -- No provision as to what is to happen to the amount so deposited for entertaining the appeal, if ultimately appellant succeeds -- Section not only bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court but has given finality to the order passed and the same can not be questioned in any manner in any Civil Court -- In order to save the validity of this proviso, it may have to be read down for which there are precedents -- To avoid injustice and unnecessary expense, the proviso to the Section may have to be read down to include the right to waive the condition by the appellate Judge in an appropriate case. Ranjit Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 48 (P&H).
Appellate Authority’s jurisdiction
Appointment of Lambardar – No justification for the Commissioner to set aside the order of the Collector, merely on the ground that the name of appointed candidate was not recommended by the lower revenue staff. Sucha Singh v. The Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 305 (P&H DB).
Rent Laws -- Remand of case – Jurisdiction of -- Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to remand the whole case to the Controller for fresh decision however, in its discretion is entitled to make such further inquiry, either himself or through Controller -- Impugned order of remand is modified to the extent that instead of deciding the whole case a fresh, the Rent Controller will record a finding on issue framed by the Appellate Authority after allowing the parties opportunities to lead evidence. Raghu Nath Jalota’s case AIR 1980 (P&H) 188 relied. Smt.Prabha Sehgal v. Shri Subhash Sahoonja, 2011(3) L.A.R. 692 (P&H).
Appellate Authority’s Power
Appointment of Lambardar – Comparative merits – Candidate appointed by Collector was convicted u/s 188 IPC in the year 1998, and is less educated as compared to the petitioner and does not own any land in his name -- Petitioner, to the contrary, is ex-army personnel with commendations to his credit -- Service rendered to the country, while in the Army, cannot be ignored -- Petitioner owns approximately 18 kanals of land, and is more educated -- Commissioner did not commit any illegality in interfering with the order passed by Collector, considering the comparative merit, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case -- Higher education, Ex-Army status, conviction and land holding are relevant criteria to be taken into account -- If this is not done, it shall be failure on the part of the appellate authority in exercising its appellate powers. Samai Singh v. State of Haryana & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 406 (P&H).
Appointment of Lambardar – Comparative merits – Commissioner is the appellate authority and is required to consider the facts and circumstances of the case, including comparative merit. Samai Singh v. State of Haryana & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 406 (P&H).
Co-operative Societies laws -- Arbitration award -- Cooperative Society itself had not preferred an appeal against the award and there could not have been a modification for its benefit by casting the entire liability on the petitioner -- A power, which a Civil Court may have under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC cannot avail in a statutory appeal, which are governed by its own procedures. Jagir Singh v. Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar Division with Head Quarter at Chandigarh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 349 (P&H).
Appointment of Administrator
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 -- If the Panchayat failed to perform any duty within the time specified, then the DDPO and the Director, as the case may be, have the power and jurisdiction to appoint an Administrator. Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 688 (P&H).
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 -- Quorum of the Gram Panchayat was not complete -- Panches are not co-operating with Sarpanch -- Sanctioned grants for construction of drains, streets, ponds, circular roads etc., latrines, sports, 12th Finance Commission and Panchayat funds to manage the shamilat land, could not be spent on the development works of the village – Held, development of the village cannot possibly be permitted to be jeopardized or hampered by the petty (village) politics and mentality of the Panches in this relevant direction – DDPO did not have any other alternative/option, but to appoint the Administrator to spend the indicated sanctioned grants on the development of the village. Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 688 (P&H).
Appointment of Lambardar
Appellate Authority’s jurisdiction -- No justification for the Commissioner to set aside the order of the Collector, merely on the ground that the name of appointed candidate was not recommended by the lower revenue staff. Sucha Singh v. The Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 305 (P&H DB).
Choice of Collector -- Collector is the appointing authority of the Lambardar -- It is the duty of the Collector to appoint such persons in the office of Lambardar, who are eligible and competent to carry out the duties efficiently -- He is in an advantageous position to examine the merits and demerits of the candidates -- Choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of village Lambardar should not normally be interfered with, unless the Collector has taken a perverse view and has not exercised his choice judiciously Satpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 636 (P&H).
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 -- Interfering with the choice exercised by the Collector on the ground that other candidates are more meritorious is not justified. Darshan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner Punjab & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 291 (P&H).
Choice of Collector – Interference in -- Notice of the appeal had not been served upon the appellant at the time when he sought the issuance of the sanad – No ground to view the appellant's conduct as suspicious – Respondent is slightly more educated than the appellant -- These facts by themselves are not sufficient to interfere with the choice of the Collector. Ram Sarup v. Sohan Lal, 2011(3) L.A.R. 653 (FC Pb.).
Choice of Collector – Interference in -- Petitioner is younger and more educated than the respondent and also has a larger land holding -- Thus it can safely be held that there was no material irregularity or perversity in his appointment as lambardar by the District Collector – Held, No sufficient ground for the Commissioner to set aside the order of the District Collector. Sukhwinder Singh v. Duman Singh, 2011(3) L.A.R. 663 (FC Pb.).
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).
Comparative merits – Power of Appellate Authority -- Candidate appointed by Collector was convicted u/s 188 IPC in the year 1998, and is less educated as compared to the petitioner and does not own any land in his name -- Petitioner, to the contrary, is ex-army personnel with commendations to his credit -- Service rendered to the country, while in the Army, cannot be ignored -- Petitioner owns approximately 18 kanals of land, and is more educated -- Commissioner did not commit any illegality in interfering with the order passed by Collector, considering the comparative merit, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case -- Higher education, Ex-Army status, conviction and land holding are relevant criteria to be taken into account -- If this is not done, it shall be failure on the part of the appellate authority in exercising its appellate powers. Samai Singh v. State of Haryana & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 406 (P&H).
Comparative merits – Power of Appellate Authority -- Commissioner is the appellate authority and is required to consider the facts and circumstances of the case, including comparative merit. Samai Singh v. State of Haryana & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 406 (P&H).
District Collector ignored the petitioner being not the permanent resident of village and he is residing in another village – Petitioner has got prepared his ration card and voter list in both villages which puts question mark on his trustworthiness – Commissioner upheld the order of Collector -- No illegality/irregularity or any perversity in the order of lower revenue Courts. Sukhdev Raj v. Ranjit Singh, 2011(3) L.A.R. 664 (FC Pb.).
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).
Punjab Land Revenue Rules -- Caste – Consideration of -- Under Rule 15(d) and (e), personal influence, strength and importance of the community from which selection of headman is to be made, are relevant factors to be considered -- In such circumstances, Collector having mentioned the population of a particular community is not entirely de hors the controversy. Fakir Chand v. State of Haryana & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 683 (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 -- 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).
Qualifications – Disqualifications -- Mere fact that petitioner is owner of 4 kanals 6 marlas of land and was subsequently elected as Sarpanch, is not a good ground to appoint him as Lambardar, particularly when a criminal case was registered against him and he was punished u/s 304 Part 1 -- Quality/character and conviction of an individual are thus a relevant consideration -- It would not be appropriate to appoint him as Lambardar of the village. Satpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 636 (P&H).
Recommendation made by the lower revenue staff is not binding on the Collector, who is the appointing authority of Lambardar. Sucha Singh v. The Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 305 (P&H DB).
Remand of case – Reasons not given – Effect of -- Financial Commissioner could have remanded the case only if some thing else was to be considered and some thing had escaped attention which ought to have been considered -- Nothing is recorded in the order which would show as to what had not been considered by the Collector, which was relevant for consideration -- Order remanding the case to the Collector, thus, cannot be sustained. Darshan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner Punjab & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 291 (P&H).
Sanad lambardari – Pendency of appeal – Effect of -- There was no misconduct in obtaining the sanad lambardari despite an appeal having been filed against the Collector's order. Ram Sarup v. Sohan Lal, 2011(3) L.A.R. 653 (FC Pb.).
Sarbrah Lambardar -- Collector appointed the appellant as Lambardar – Choice of the Collector is to be upheld unless and until it suffers from any patent illegality or perversity – Previous lambardar, who was father of the respondent, died in 1990 -- Being Sarbrah lambardar and the son of deceased lambardar, it was his duty to inform about the death of previous lambardar to the revenue authorities to initiate action for appointment of new lambardar -- But the respondent failed to perform his duty and action for appointment of new lambardar could be initiated only in 2005 – Obviously respondent acted in a irresponsible way – In merit also, appellant has edge over the respondent being more educated and younger in age – Order of the Collector is well reasoned and justified and deserve to be upheld. Mehar Singh @ Bharpur Singh v. Pritpal Singh, 2011(3) L.A.R. 657 (FC Pb.).
Apportionment of Award
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Eviction order was passed after the land had already been acquired – Held, relationship of a tenant and landlord comes to an end on the date of passing of eviction order and not merely by any unilateral act of the landlord, may be on filing of an application for eviction – Tenant shall be entitled to share 1/3rd amount of compensation for the land in their possession and the landlord shall be entitled to get 2/3rd share. Nahar Singh (deceased) through LRs and another v. Mandir Nar Singh Puri and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 377 (P&H).
Arbitration award
Co-operative Societies laws -- Appellate Authority’s power -- Cooperative Society itself had not preferred an appeal against the award and there could not have been a modification for its benefit by casting the entire liability on the petitioner -- A power, which a Civil Court may have under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC cannot avail in a statutory appeal, which are governed by its own procedures. Jagir Singh v. Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar Division with Head Quarter at Chandigarh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 349 (P&H).
Arrears of rent
Ejectment -- Section 7 of Pepsu Tenancy Act, must be read as providing to a tenant an additional period of what the Punjab Tenancy Act provides – It will be wrong to assume that a landlord could decide to exclude the provisions of Pepsu Tenancy Law by applying under the Punjab Tenancy Act – The application of Acts cannot be made to be dependent on the personal whims of a landlord. Joginder Singh and others v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 676 (P&H).
Rent Laws -- Assessment of provisional rent – Extension of time – Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period of time for the purpose of tendering provisionally assessed rent without there being any reason. Sanjeet Singh v. Mohali Motor Finance Co. and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 247 (P&H).
Rent Laws -- Tender of rent – Eviction of tenant -- Date fixed for tendering of rent by the tenants was fixed at Sunday -- Rent Controller took up the case on the next working day, but on that date, the counsel for the tenants did not ask for fixing a date for proper orders, rather prayed for extension of time on the ground that the tenants has not come forward for the purpose of tendering rent due to death of a close relative – Tenant did not lead any prima facie evidence in this regard, it is possible that on that date the tenants were not having arrangement of the rent to be paid as it is evident, dispossession of the tenants was stayed subject to their clearing the entire arrears of rent within 10 days from the said date, but despite that order, the tenants tendered the rent beyond the period of 10 days – Eviction order, upheld. Surinder Kumar and another v. Smt. Leela Devi, 2011(3) L.A.R. 236 (P&H).
Rent Laws -- Tender of rent -- Holiday – Duties of the parties -- If the adjourned date is not an unanticipated holiday but a holiday already declared in the calendar for the judicial Courts for the States of Punjab, Haryana and UT Chandigarh or is a Sunday, then in that circumstance, Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules & Orders would not be applicable because it deals with only an unanticipated holiday and not a holiday which is already known -- In this regard, no rule is brought to the notice of the Court by the parties and in these circumstances, the parties appearing before the Court in such type of cases, can always pray for a date for proper orders. Surinder Kumar and another v. Smt. Leela Devi, 2011(3) L.A.R. 236 (P&H).
Assessment of annual rental value
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 -- House Tax – Earlier assessment by the Committee was made on the basis of 10 paise per bag, whereas the Administrator raised the annual rental value by enhancing the rent to 16 paise per bag – It clearly vests the power in the Committee to amend the assessment list on the ground of increase or reduction of the annual value of the property – High Court not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Food Corporation of India v. Municipal Committee, Kotakpura & another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 287 (P&H).
Assessment of provisional rent
Rent Laws -- Extension of time – Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period of time for the purpose of tendering provisionally assessed rent without there being any reason. Sanjeet Singh v. Mohali Motor Finance Co. and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 247 (P&H).
Assessment of value of land
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 -- Market rent – Standard rent -- Value of the land shall follow the Collector’s circle rates and the value of the buildings shall be in the manner as laid down under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. Satish Chander Sanwalka v. Additional Deputy Commissioner, exercising the power of the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 353 (P&H).
Attestation of Unprivileged Wills
Execution of -- Testator must sign or affix his mark on the Will or the same shall be signed by some other person as per his direction and in his presence -- Signature or mark of the testator or the signature of the person signing for him shall be placed in a manner which may convey the intention of the testator to give effect to the writing as a Will, which is also required to be attested by two or more persons, each of whom must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark on the Will or some other person sign the Will in the presence or as per the direction of the testator -- If the witness has received a personal acknowledgment from the testator of his signature or mark or the signature of other person signing on his behalf, then it is not necessary that both the witnesses shall simultaneously remain present -- No particular form of attestation is necessary. Dayanandi v. Rukma D. Suvarna and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 534 (SC).
Attorney
Rent Laws -- Bonafide need -- Eviction petition through Attorney -- Attorney is the father-in-law of the landlord and thus, it cannot be said that he is not in the knowledge of the personal facts which are necessary for disposal of petition – Rent Controller held that petition filed through power of attorney is maintainable – Order upheld. M/s. Hind Sons Agency and Ors. v. Sh. Jai Parkash Jain, 2011(3) L.A.R. 274 (P&H).
No comments:
Post a Comment