Lambardar/Village Headmen
Punjab Land Revenue Act -- Village officer – Entire land administration is regulated by the strong body of Government servants and Collector has been designated as the Controller of the District -- Government machinery has been supplemented by the representatives of the landowners/inhabitants of the locality in the shape of village headman (Lambardar) -- It is always obviously convenient for the State functionaries to deal with the village communities through Lambardar, who status-wise is village-officer, as envisaged under section 3(11) of the Act. Satpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 636 (P&H).
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894)
Section 4, 5-A, 6 -- Acquisition of land – 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).
Section 4,5-A, 6 -- Acquisition of land – 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 -- 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 – 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).
Section 4,5-A, 6, 11 18 -- Acquisition of land – Acceptance of award amount – Reference for enhancement – Land transferred to third party – Challenge to -- Writ for quashing of the acquisition proceedings and for restoration of the acquired land on the ground that instead of using the same for the public purpose specified in the notifications issued u/s 4(1) and 6, the Corporation had transferred the same to private persons – 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).
Section 4,5-A, 6, 11 18 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 – Acquisition of land – Challenge to – 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).
Section 4, 5-A, 6, 17 – Acquisition of land for District jail – 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).
Section 4, 5-A, 6, 17 – Acquisition of land for public purpose – 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).
Section 4, 5-A, 6, 17 – Acquisition of land for Residential/ Commercial/ Institutional area -- 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).
Section 4, 6 – Acquisition of land – Challenge to – 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).
Section 4, 6, 11, 23 – Acquisition of land – 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).
Section 4, 6, 11, 28 – Acquisition of land -- 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).
Section 4, 23(1) – Notification u/s 4 – Publication of – Relevant date for determining compensation -- The context in which the words are used in sections 4(1) and 6, and the context in which the same words are used in section 23(1) are completely different – In section 23(1), the words “the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1)” would refer to the date of publication of the notification in the gazette. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority v. Gobinda Chandra Makal & Anr., 2011(3) L.A.R. 618 (SC).
Section 11, 30 – Award – Apportionment of -- 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).
Section 11,18, 54 – Award – Reference Court order -- 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).
Section 23 – Acquisition of land – 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).
Section 23 – Market Value – Exampler sale deed is 6 months old – No addition is required -- Only about six months had passed from the date of the exemplar sale deed, when the preliminary notification regarding the acquisition was issued in the same year – Held, unless the difference is more than one year, normally no addition should be made towards appreciation in value, unless there is special evidence to show some specific increase within a short period -- Addition of 8% to the price was unwarranted. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority v. Gobinda Chandra Makal & Anr., 2011(3) L.A.R. 618 (SC).
Land reserved for school
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Shamilat deh – Change of land use to residential house -- Property which is set apart as a school still is shamilat deh and read with Rule 10-A, it is possible for the Panchayat to take a decision for use of the property for residential purposes. Kapur Singh and others v. Collector-cum-District Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 382 (P&H).
Land Revenue
Punjab Land Revenue Act -- Lambardar acts as a very important link between the Collector, representative of the State and village community to recover the land revenue, cess or taxes of any kind and other related functions in order to achieve the aims and objects of the Act. Satpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 636 (P&H).
Land transferred to third party
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Acceptance of award amount – Reference for enhancement – Effect of -- 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 -- Challenge to -- Acquisition of land – Public purpose -- 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).
Landlord’s permissible area
Determination of -- 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).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 -- Haryana Utilization of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1972 – Tenant’s permissible area – Right to Purchase/allotment -- A property held by a tenant is within the permissible area of the land owner and if it is specifically retained as falling with the reserved area, there is no question of the tenant making an assertion of a right for allotment under the Haryana Utilization of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1972. Ram Devi (through LRs) and another v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 667 (P&H).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Right of purchase of land by tenant -- Death of landlord – Effect of -- 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).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 -- Tenant’s permissible area – Ejectment -- Land owner was a displaced person, the land owner would be entitled to 50 standard acre or 100 ordinary acres -- If the land owner’s holding was in excess of the permissible area, the tenant could have had his own permissible area -- On the other hand, if the permissible area of the tenant was less than 50 standard acres, which fell within the permissible area of the landlord also, then the tenant could only treat himself to be a tenant, who was liable for ejectment under Section 9. Ram Devi (through LRs) and another v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 667 (P&H).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Tenant’s permissible area – Surplus area – Determination of -- Sale of land by landlord – Right of transferee -- A transferee gets into the shoes of the transferors and he is entitled to protect his own rights to ensure that a reservation is so done that the property purchased by him falls within the reserved area -- Such a determination again could not have been done without allowing the purchaser to participate in the proceedings – Plea that a purchaser pendente lite cannot be heard at all, rejected. Baldev Raj and others v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana at Chandigarh, and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 698 (P&H).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Tenant’s permissible area – Surplus area -- If there existed no surplus land, and the tenant cannot be protected to secure a benefit u/s 18 and if the landlords opt for action for ejectment, the tenant could still stake a claim under the relevant rules in the capacity as ejected tenant. Baldev Raj and others v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana at Chandigarh, and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 698 (P&H).
Landowner died
Pendency of Surplus land proceedings – Re-determination in the hands of Legal representatives -- Declaration has not come to finality and proceedings are still pending, landowner died on 08.05.1974 -- Succession opened in terms of Full Bench in Sardara Singh’s case 2008(3) PLR 297 -- Property has not vested in the State and there being final determination of the surplus area, it requires to be re-determined in the hands of legal representatives of the deceased landlord after serving notices to all the alienees, including the purchasers and lessees. Inder Parkash and another v. The State of Punjab through Secretary to Government, Punjab, Revenue Department, Chandigarh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 611 (P&H).
Leave to defend
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – Lessee/Licensee for 99 years – NRI landlord – Petition u/s 13-B maintainable – Tenant filed an application seeking 'leave to defend', which has been allowed by the Rent Controller only on the ground that the petitioner is not the owner and is rather a lessee having a lease of 99 years of the demised premises from the P.S.S.I.C -- “Whether a licensee of a property for a period of 99 years having a right to possession and transfer falls within the definition of owner for the purpose of a petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act ? – “Whether or not the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises for the purpose of instituting a suit for eviction in terms of the Act ?” -- Question posed by the Landlord is to be answered in his favour -- Order of Rent Controller set aside – Since leave to defend is being declined, the matter is remanded back to the Rent Controller, to pass order of eviction in accordance with law. Swadesh Ranjan Sinha’s case 1991 (4) SCC 572 relied. Kanwaljit Singh v. Banarsi Dass, 2011(3) L.A.R. 175 (P&H).
Lessee for 99 years
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 -- NRI landlord – Petition u/s 13-B maintainable – Leave to defend -- Tenant filed an application seeking 'leave to defend', which has been allowed by the Rent Controller only on the ground that the petitioner is not the owner and is rather a lessee having a lease of 99 years of the demised premises from the P.S.S.I.C -- “Whether a licensee of a property for a period of 99 years having a right to possession and transfer falls within the definition of owner for the purpose of a petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act ? – “Whether or not the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises for the purpose of instituting a suit for eviction in terms of the Act ?” -- Question posed by the Landlord is to be answered in his favour -- Order of Rent Controller set aside – Since leave to defend is being declined, the matter is remanded back to the Rent Controller, to pass order of eviction in accordance with law. Swadesh Ranjan Sinha’s case 1991 (4) SCC 572 relied. Kanwaljit Singh v. Banarsi Dass, 2011(3) L.A.R. 175 (P&H).
Letting out not necessary to be by N.R.I.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act -- Petition u/s 13-B of the Act -- Letting out is not a sine-qua-non to maintain eviction petition -- A co-owner NRI can seek eviction of the tenant in a building though the tenant was not inducted by such NRI and that it is not necessary that all other co-owners should be Non Resident Indians. Smt. Bachan Kaur and others v. Kabal Singh & Another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 263 (P&H DB).
Licensee for 99 years
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 -- NRI landlord – Petition u/s 13-B maintainable – Leave to defend -- Tenant filed an application seeking 'leave to defend', which has been allowed by the Rent Controller only on the ground that the petitioner is not the owner and is rather a lessee having a lease of 99 years of the demised premises from the P.S.S.I.C -- “Whether a licensee of a property for a period of 99 years having a right to possession and transfer falls within the definition of owner for the purpose of a petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act ? – “Whether or not the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises for the purpose of instituting a suit for eviction in terms of the Act ?” -- Question posed by the Landlord is to be answered in his favour -- Order of Rent Controller set aside – Since leave to defend is being declined, the matter is remanded back to the Rent Controller, to pass order of eviction in accordance with law. Swadesh Ranjan Sinha’s case 1991 (4) SCC 572 relied. Kanwaljit Singh v. Banarsi Dass, 2011(3) L.A.R. 175 (P&H).
Limitation
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 -- Appeal – 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).
Recovery of Financial loss to Panchayat – Validity of 53(5) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Challenge to – Sub-Section (5) introduces a kind of limitation of six years after the occurrence of the incident of loss or two years from the date that a person had ceased to be a Sarpanch or Panch -- Sub-Section (5), does not bar the eventual steps for recovery that may follow the determination of loss, waste or mis-application, as may be -- Bar imposed is only with regard to the initiation of the process by asking upon the delinquent to explain – Held, there is no infirmity in the said provisions of the Act. Gram Panchayat, Village Jatuwas v. Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 674 (P&H DB).
Limitation for execution
Public Premises Laws -- Eviction order passed – Execution after 16 years – Collector dismissed the execution on the ground of limitation -- Commissioner allowed the execution application in appeal on the ground that no limitation for filing execution is provided – Order of Commissioner upheld. Ashwani Kumar’s case 2003(3) P.L.R. 235 relied. Sucha Singh v. Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 111 (P&H).
Local Commissioner
Appointment of -- Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from damaging, destroying and demolishing the shop in dispute -- In the suit, the main issue is, as to whether plaintiff has encroached upon the Municipal’s land or not – Plaintiff/respondent submitted building expert’s report containing the measurement of the shop in dispute -- In rebuttal, defendants/Municipal Council want to call measurement report through the Local Commissioner – Held, dispute is about the measurement of the shop in dispute, hence, application moved by the defendants/petitioners allowed to rebut the report filed by the plaintiff/respondent. Municipal Council, Phagwara & another v. Naranjan Singh, 2011(3) L.A.R. 79 (P&H).
No comments:
Post a Comment