Date of Eligibility
Allotment of flat by Society – Challenge to -- 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).
Dealer’s Board
Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 -- Tax on advertisement -- Trade, profession or business being carried on within the land, building, shop or outlet etc. also includes the trade, profession or business in the goods, services and/or any other taxable activity in relation to which the advertisement board has been erected, exhibited fixed or retained upon such land, building, shop or outlet, no Advertisement Tax can be levied in view of the proviso (c) to Section 122(1) of the Act -- Dealer Boards have been erected or displayed by it on the outlet, shops or buildings where one of the activity of the ‘business’ or ‘trade’ carried on includes the sale of the products marketed or distributed -- No Advertisement Tax is leviable on such Dealer Boards. Aradhana Drinks & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 69 (P&H DB).
Death of landlord
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Surplus area – Landlord’s permissible area – A tenant's right to obtain a compulsory purchase would by only in respect of properties which are available outside the permissible area of the landlord -- Permissible area for a tenant can be determined only after the landlord exercises his right under Section 5-B of the Act -- Before the determination is done, if the landowner has died and the succession has taken place, then by the scheme of the Act, inevitably, there has to be a redetermination of the landlord's permissible area in the hands of the legal heirs -- Determination shall precede the consideration of the tenant's right under Section 18. Baldev Raj and others v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana at Chandigarh, and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 698 (P&H).
Rent Laws -- Bonafide need -- 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).
Declaration of Surplus area
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 -- Will -- Effect of -- Words and expressions appearing in Section 10-A(b) leave no ambiguity as to legislative intent that devolution of interest by way of a testamentary instrument, shall not have the affect of diminishing surplus area, existing on the commencement of the Act and to put it simply a Will recording a devolution of land that has been declared surplus, shall not entitle the beneficiary to pray that surplus area proceedings be reopened or that the land bequeathed to him be excluded from surplus area. Rajinder Kaur and others v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 398 (P&H).
Deficiency in security deposit
Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 -- Election petition -- Maintainability of appeal -- Appeal against the rejection of an election petition on account of non-compliance of provisions of Sections 76, 77 or 103 of the Act, the provisions of Rule 53 of the Rules cannot be given over riding effect as the Rules are always subservient to the parent Act and cannot override the same – Held, an appeal against the order of the Tribunal rejecting the election petition on account of non-compliance of provisions of Section 76, or Section 77 or Section 103 of the Act or Rule 52 of the Rules shall be maintainable under Section 100 of the Act. Smt. Bhajan Kaur and another v. Gurmej Kaur and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 162 (P&H).
Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 -- Election petition -- Maintainability of appeal -- Rejection of plaint – Opportunity to deposit -- Procedure pertaining to trial of suits is provided in first schedule of the CPC -- Election petition can be equated with a plaint -- Held, as per the principles laid down in Order VII Rule 11 (c) CPC, in case the Tribunal finds that the security deposited by the election petitioner is deficient, before passing any order rejecting the election petition on that ground, opportunity should have been afforded to make the deficiency good and it is only on failure to comply with the direction, that the election petition be dismissed on that ground. Smt. Bhajan Kaur and another v. Gurmej Kaur and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 162 (P&H).
Delay and laches
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Acquisition of land – Challenge to – 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).
Writ Jurisdiction – Although, framers of the Constitution have not prescribed any period of limitation for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the power conferred upon the High Court to issue to any person or authority including any Government, directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo-warranto and certiorari is not hedged with any condition or constraint, in last 61 years the superior Courts have evolved several rules of self-imposed restraint including the one that the High Court may not enquire into belated or stale claim and deny relief to the petitioner if he is found guilty of laches -- Principle underlying this rule is that the one who is not vigilant and does not seek intervention of the Court within reasonable time from the date of accrual of cause of action or alleged violation of constitutional, legal or other right is not entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution -- Another reason for the High Court’s refusal to entertain belated claim is that during the intervening period rights of third parties may have crystallized and it will be inequitable to disturb those rights at the instance of a person who has approached the Court after long lapse of time and there is no cogent explanation for the delay -- No hard and fast rule can be laid down and no straightjacket formula can be evolved for deciding the question of delay/laches and each case has to be decided on its own facts. M/s. Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and another v. G. Jayarama Reddy and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 481 (SC).
Delegated legislation
Constitution of India – Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 -- Amended in Act not permissible by Delegated legislation -- What is the scope and extent of the power exercisable by the Central Government while ‘modifying’ a Central Act, State Act or Provincial Act under Section 72(2) of the 1966 Act and does it amount and include the power to ‘amend’ such laws? – Held, the notification, order or a direction issued by a delegate under the Re-organization Act neither acquires the status of Constitutional provision nor of a Parliamentary legislation -- Section 72 of the 1966 Act empowers the Central Government to issue directions pertaining to the ‘functioning’ and ‘operation’ of an inter-State body corporate in the areas where it was functioning and operating immediately before the appointed day -- These directions may include that the ‘law’ governing the affairs of the body-corporate before it became an inter-State body corporate, shall continue to apply to it for the purpose of its ‘functioning’ or ‘operation’ in those areas which have gone out of jurisdictional control of the State under whose law such body-corporate was constituted -- Power exercisable by the Central Government under sub-Section (2) of Section 72 of the 1966 Act to ‘modify’ the Central Act, State Act or Provincial Act does not include the power to ‘amend’ such Acts. Sehajdhari Sikh Federation v. Union of India & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 409 (P&H Full Bench).
Constitution of India, Article 368 – It is trite that a subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity or privilege as is enjoyed upon by an Act of the competent Legislature – Action of a delegate can be questioned not only on the grounds on which the plenary legislation is assailable, it can also be probed on the ground that it does not conform to the Statute under which it is made -- Such a piece of legislation can also be tested on the plea of unreasonableness that no fair-minded authority could ever have made it. Sehajdhari Sikh Federation v. Union of India & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 409 (P&H Full Bench).
Constitution of India, Article 368 – It is wholly illogical to say that an action taken by the Executive as a delegate under the re-organization law becomes a part of the Constitution -- Since a re-organization law itself is the creation of the Constitution, an administrative or quasi-judicial action taken thereunder cannot be equated even to a degree with any provision of the Constitution. Sehajdhari Sikh Federation v. Union of India & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 409 (P&H Full Bench).
Exercise of powers -- Law summarized -- The delegated legislative power is exercisable subject to observance of the binding principles by the delegate including that :– a. the authority exercising delegated power may modify a law but not the essential features of its declared legislative policy -- b. it is exercisable to implement and achieve the object(s) of a Statute within the framework of the legislative policy -- c. every delegate is subject to the authority and control of the principal and exercise of delegated power can always be directed, corrected or cancelled by such principal -- d. the delegate in the garb of making rules etc. cannot legislate on the field covered by the Act -- e. the power of ‘modification’ entrusted to a delegate does not include any change of policy and is restricted to alteration of such a character which keeps the legislative policy of the Act intact and introduces such changes as are appropriate to local conditions. Sehajdhari Sikh Federation v. Union of India & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 409 (P&H Full Bench).
Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 -- Constitution of India – Whether Section 72 of the 1966 Act is an enabling provision or it carries a ‘command’ to ‘modify’ the Laws and whether such ‘modification’ partakes the character of Parliamentary legislation? – The power to ‘modify’ a Statute delegated under Section 72 does not authorize to change any essential legislative features or the policy built into such Statute -- The Parliament while empowering the Central Government to ‘modify’ an Act under Section 72(2) neither intended nor could it delegate the power to ‘repeal’ or ‘amend’ an Act, for such a power under the Constitutional scheme is exercisable by the Legislature alone -- The delegated legislative power cannot run parallel to the principal legislation and must exercise its power within the framework of the Statute -- Section 72 of the 1966 Act is an enabling provision and the power to cause ‘exception’ or ‘modification’ in a Central Act, State Act or Provincial Act is not unguided, unfettered or unbridled and is subject to the inherent limitations to be read into the phrase that the “bodycorporate shall continue to function and operate in those areas in respect of which it was functioning and operating immediately before the appointed day” -- The directions issued by the Central Government under Section 72 though shall amount to ‘law’ within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution but they do not partake the character of a Parliamentary legislation. Sehajdhari Sikh Federation v. Union of India & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 409 (P&H Full Bench).
Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 -- Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 -- Constitution of India – Sehajdhari Sikhs – Right to vote -- Notification dated 8.10.2003 issued by the Central Government purportedly in exercise of its powers u/s 72 of the Act, 1966, whereby Sections 49 and 92 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 have been ‘amended’ to the extent of denying the Sehajdhari Sikhs their right to vote in the elections of Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) -- Whether the ‘modifications’ made in Sections 49 and 92 of the 1925 Act by the impugned Notification, achieve any supplemental, incidental and consequential object of re-organizing the erstwhile State of Punjab under the 1966 Act? – Held, subject notification does not throw any light on the legal necessity for its issuance, namely, the ‘functioning’ or ‘operation’ of the Board as an inter-State body corporate in the areas of its operation immediate before 1st November, 1966 -- Impugned Notification does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 72 of the Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 -- Notification dated 8.10.2003 quashed. Sehajdhari Sikh Federation v. Union of India & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 409 (P&H Full Bench).
Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 -- Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 -- Constitution of India – Sehajdhari Sikhs – Right to vote -- Whether prescription of eligibility for the ‘electors’ and/or the right to vote granted to a class of people by the Legislature under 1925 Act is an inseparable part of its legislative policy, and if so, can any change in the eligibility conditions or such a right be taken away in exercise of the delegated legislative powers? – Held, right to vote conferred on a class or category of people subject to their possessing the qualifications laid down in Sections 49 & 92, is an integral part of the legislative policy of the 1925 Act and it being a valuable legal right, cannot be taken away except by the competent Legislature itself. A delegate has no authority to take a decision in this regard, contrary to the essential legislative policy of the Statute. Sehajdhari Sikh Federation v. Union of India & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 409 (P&H Full Bench).
Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 -- Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 -- Sehajdhari Sikhs – Right to vote -- Notification dated 8.10.2003 issued by the Central Government purportedly in exercise of its powers u/s 72 of the Act, 1966, whereby Sections 49 and 92 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 have been ‘amended’ to the extent of denying the Sehajdhari Sikhs their right to vote in the elections of Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) -- Whether the ‘modifications’ made in Sections 49 and 92 of the 1925 Act by the impugned Notification, achieve any supplemental, incidental and consequential object of re-organizing the erstwhile State of Punjab under the 1966 Act? – Held, subject notification does not throw any light on the legal necessity for its issuance, namely, the ‘functioning’ or ‘operation’ of the Board as an inter-State body corporate in the areas of its operation immediate before 1.11.1966 -- Impugned Notification does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 72 of the Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 -- Notification dated 8.10.2003 quashed. Sehajdhari Sikh Federation v. Union of India & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 409 (P&H Full Bench).
Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 -- Sehajdhari Sikhs -- Right to vote – Right to vote conferred by a Statute is indubitably a legal right only and it can be taken away by the Legislature at will -- It is the Legislature alone that can re-determine qualifications for taking away the right to vote earlier given by it to that class or category of people -- Legislature neither can do so nor has it actually delegated its power to lay down the qualifications for the ‘Electors’ to the Executive under the 1925 Act nor such a delegation is inferable from Section 72 of the 1966 Act. Sehajdhari Sikh Federation v. Union of India & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 409 (P&H Full Bench).
Delivery of possession
Allotment of plot – 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).
Determination of Landlord’s permissible area
Shortfall while in consolidation proceedings -- After holding of the property is determined, any action had been taken independently under the Consolidation Act and consequently the owner suffers any shortfall within the permissible area, the owner could have had a remedy under the Consolidation Act itself – Prescribed Authority had no power to reopen the issue of his surplus, the owner is entitled to approach the Authorities under the Consolidation Act. Baini Singh v. State of Haryana through the Collector, Rohtak and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 694 (P&H).
Discretionary Quota
Government Residences [Chandigarh Administration General Pool] Allotment Rules, 1996 -- Allotment of Government accommodation – 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).
Dismissal of employee of Society
Co-operative Society Laws -- Revision – Maintainability of -- Against dismissal order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies under the Common Cadre Rules -- If an order has been passed by the Registrar, exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority under the Statutory Rules or Common Cadre Rules, a revision against such an order is maintainable. Jasbir Singh and others v. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 1 (P&H FB).
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954)
Section 23 -- Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, Rule 92(4) – Appeal – Limitation -- If Section 23 itself provides for the extension of the period of limitation then, the provisions must be given a full application to allow the Chief Settlement Commissioner to entertain the appeal if, sufficient cause had been showed -- In this case, no such attempt had been made – Appeal with no justification to file beyond a period of 30 days was certainly not maintainable. Dev Raj v. The Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 354 (P&H).
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955
Rule 92(4) – Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954), Section 23 -- Appeal – Limitation -- If Section 23 itself provides for the extension of the period of limitation then, the provisions must be given a full application to allow the Chief Settlement Commissioner to entertain the appeal if, sufficient cause had been showed -- In this case, no such attempt had been made – Appeal with no justification to file beyond a period of 30 days was certainly not maintainable. Dev Raj v. The Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 354 (P&H).
Disqualifications
Appointment of Lambardar – 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).
Diversification of purpose
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Acquisition of land – Public 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).
Duties of the parties
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 -- Holiday – Arrears of rent -- Tender of rent -- 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).
Rent Laws -- Presiding officer on leave – Unanticipated holidays – In case of an unanticipated holiday or in the event of the Presiding Officer of a Court being absent owing to sudden illness or other unexpected cause, all cases fixed for the day in question shall be deemed to be automatically adjourned to the next working day when the Presiding Officer is present and it shall be the duty of the parties or their counsel (but not of witnesses) to attend the Court on that day. Surinder Kumar and another v. Smt. Leela Devi, 2011(3) L.A.R. 236 (P&H).
Duty of Authorities
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Evacuee property -- Ejectment order – Non-speaking order – A.C. Ist Grade did not decide the question of title and passed the non-speaking ejectment order -- Appellate Authority repeated the same mistake – Authorities ought to have discussed the evidence brought on record and were legally required to record the valid reasons, for arriving at a right conclusion, in order to decide the real controversy -- Whether the land in dispute was the evacuee property, vests in the custodian department or falls within the definition of shamilat deh, as defined under Section 2(G) of the Act, or that the land of the petitioners is exempted from the operation of law, in view of Section 4 of the Act, on account of their long possession for the last about 60 years etc., would be the moot points to be decided by the authorities under the Act -- Matter remanded back to the A.C. Ist Grade, for its fresh decision. Kanhi Ram and another v. Gram Panchayat Dhani Silawali and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 337 (P&H).
No comments:
Post a Comment