Wakf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995)
Section 6, 7, 85 -- Wakf property – Wakf Tribunal -- Civil Court – Jurisdiction of -- Jurisdiction to determine whether or not a property is a wakf property or whether a wakf is a Shia wakf or a Sunni wakf rests entirely with the Tribunal and no suit or other proceeding can be instituted or commenced in a Civil Court in relation to any such question after the commencement of the Act – Institution of the Civil Court is barred only in regard to questions that are specifically enumerated therein -- Bar is not complete so as to extend to other questions that may arise in relation to the wakf property. Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2011(3) L.A.R. 141 (SC).
Section 6,7,83, 85 – Wakf property -- Eviction of tenant -- Civil court – Jurisdiction of -- Act does not provide for any proceedings before the Tribunal for determination of a dispute concerning the eviction of a tenant in occupation of a wakf property or the rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessees of such property -- A suit seeking eviction of the tenants from wakf property could, therefore, be filed only before the Civil Court and not before the Tribunal. Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2011(3) L.A.R. 141 (SC).
Section 6, 7, 33, 35, 47, 48, 51, 64, 67, 72, 73, 83, 85 – Wakf property – Wakf Tribunal – Civil court – Jurisdiction of -- Expression “for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property” appearing in Section 83(1) also appears in Section 85 of the Act -- Crucial question that shall have to be answered in every case where a plea regarding exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is raised is whether the Tribunal is under the Act or the Rules required to deal with the matter sought to be brought before a Civil Court -- If it is not, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not excluded -- But if the Tribunal is required to decide the matter the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would stand excluded. Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2011(3) L.A.R. 141 (SC).
Section 83 – Wakf Tribunal – Civil Court – Jurisdiction of -- Nothing in Section 83 to suggest that it pushes the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts extends beyond what has been provided for in Section 6(5), Section 7 and Section 85 of the Act -- It simply empowers the Government to constitute a Tribunal or Tribunals for determination of any dispute, question of other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property which does not ipso facto mean that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts stands completely excluded by reasons of such establishment. Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2011(3) L.A.R. 141 (SC).
Wakf Property / Tribunal
Wakf Act -- Eviction of tenant -- Civil court – Jurisdiction of -- Act does not provide for any proceedings before the Tribunal for determination of a dispute concerning the eviction of a tenant in occupation of a wakf property or the rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessees of such property -- A suit seeking eviction of the tenants from wakf property could, therefore, be filed only before the Civil Court and not before the Tribunal. Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2011(3) L.A.R. 141 (SC).
Wakf Act -- Eviction of tenant -- Civil court – Jurisdiction of -- Act does not provide for any proceedings before the Tribunal for determination of a dispute concerning the eviction of a tenant in occupation of a wakf property or the rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessees of such property -- A suit seeking eviction of the tenants from wakf property could, therefore, be filed only before the Civil Court and not before the Tribunal. Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2011(3) L.A.R. 141 (SC).
Wakf Act – Wakf Tribunal – Civil court – Jurisdiction of -- Expression “for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property” appearing in Section 83(1) also appears in Section 85 of the Act -- Crucial question that shall have to be answered in every case where a plea regarding exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is raised is whether the Tribunal is under the Act or the Rules required to deal with the matter sought to be brought before a Civil Court -- If it is not, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not excluded -- But if the Tribunal is required to decide the matter the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would stand excluded. Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2011(3) L.A.R. 141 (SC).
Wakf Act -- Wakf Tribunal -- Civil Court – Jurisdiction of -- Jurisdiction to determine whether or not a property is a wakf property or whether a wakf is a Shia wakf or a Sunni wakf rests entirely with the Tribunal and no suit or other proceeding can be instituted or commenced in a Civil Court in relation to any such question after the commencement of the Act – Institution of the Civil Court is barred only in regard to questions that are specifically enumerated therein -- Bar is not complete so as to extend to other questions that may arise in relation to the wakf property. Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2011(3) L.A.R. 141 (SC).
Will
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 -- Surplus area – Declaration 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).
Suspicious circumstances -- Witness deposed, the testator had affixed left thumb mark on Exhibit D.1 and he had signed the Will as a witness in the clinic -- Witness did not say that testator had affixed left thumb mark in his presence and that he had put his signatures as witness in the presence of the testator -- Executant was suffering from acute stomach cancer and was not in a position to eat or walk -- Just 14 days after the execution of the second Will, the executant died – Held, execution of Will was highly suspicious. Dayanandi v. Rukma D. Suvarna and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 534 (SC).
Transfer of property by Will -- A will is the testament of the testator -- It is a posthumous disposition of the estate of the testator directing distribution of his estate upon his death -- It is not a transfer inter vivos -- Two essential characteristics of a will are that it is intended to come into effect only after the death of the testator and is revocable at any time during the life time of the testator -- It is said that so long as the testator is alive, a will is not be worth the paper on which it is written, as the testator can at any time revoke it -- If the testator, who is not married, marries after making the will, by operation of law, the will stands revoked -- Registration of a will does not make it any more effective. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 593 (SC).
Writ Jurisdiction
Delay and laches -- 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).
Panchayat Laws -- Suspension of Sarpanch/Panch -- Preliminary enquiry -- Regular inquiry is pending, Court not inclined to invoke writ jurisdiction to see the correctness of the suspension order – Held, suspension order cannot be kept in force for indefinite period, direction given to conclude the final inquiry within 90 days in accordance with law, if inquiry is not complete/concluded within the time prescribed, suspension order shall be deemed having been revoked on the expiry of 90 days. Baldev Singh Panch v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 256 (P&H).
Suspension of Sarpanch – Removal of Sarpanch – Order containing valid reasons cannot legally be interfered with, in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction, unless and until, the same is perverse and without jurisdiction -- As no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be maintained. Guddu Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Saunti and other v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 180 (P&H).
Writ on other ground by other landowner
Maintainability of -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- 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).
No comments:
Post a Comment