Object of Section 13-B of the Act
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act -- NRI Landlord/Owner – Summary right of eviction – Object of granting summary right of eviction to a Non Resident Indian is to provide mechanism for possession of their own residential building, as an exception to rigid legal provisions of the existing provisions of the law -- Such right is manifested when right of eviction is conferred on an owner. Smt. Bachan Kaur and others v. Kabal Singh & Another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 263 (P&H DB).
Objections
Government Residences [Chandigarh Administration General Pool] Allotment Rules, 1996 – Allotment of Government accommodation – 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).
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Acquisition of land for District jail – Urgency provision invoked – 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).
Partition of land – Objection relates to not providing passage to the land – Held, objections are not based on facts, as necessary passage has been given – Assistant Collector rejected the other objection regarding payment of compensation for improvements made on the land as they had failed to produce the necessary supporting evidence – No, other defect has been shown – Accordingly order passed by Assistant Collector, upheld. Bhuri v. Girdhari, 2011(3) L.A.R. 651 (FC Hry.).
Rent Laws -- Execution of eviction order – In revision, tenant made a request that he may be allowed six months' time to vacate the demised premises, ultimately, the revision petition was dismissed only on the ground that six months had already expired -- In these circumstances, tenant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate – Held, all objections which could have been raised before the High Court by the tenant are deemed to have been waived off and cannot be re-agitated in the execution application. Sewa Singh v. Shri Mohinder Singh, 2011(3) L.A.R. 359 (P&H).
Rent Laws -- Execution of eviction order – Rent Controller/Civil Court -- Whether the Rent Controller can execute the order of eviction as a decree which is executable only by a Civil Court – Held, Civil Judges are exercising the powers of the Rent Controllers, therefore, it is only a matter of nomenclature that when the rent petition is filed it is to be addressed to the Rent Controller and when execution is filed it is to be addressed to the Civil Court who is none-else then the Rent Controller -- Objections dismissed -- Direction issued to all the Rent Controllers in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory Chandigarh to mention in their orders that they are deciding the execution as Rent Controller-cum-Civil Court instead of hearing the objections as Rent Controller so that this kind of frivolous objection may not be raised in future leading to a litigation before this Court. Sewa Singh v. Shri Mohinder Singh, 2011(3) L.A.R. 359 (P&H).
Obliteration 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).
Onus of proof
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Market Value – Undervaluation of – Deviation from the Collector's rate would be possible only if it is shown that Collector's valuation does not reflect the market rate -- If the State that wants to contend that Collector's rate does not reflect the market rate and the market rate is even higher than the Collector's rate, the burden shall be on the State to give tangible materials to act on. Aggarwal Construction Company v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 608 (P&H).
Opportunity to deposit deficiency in security deposit
Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 -- Election petition -- Deficiency in security deposit – Maintainability of appeal -- Rejection of plaint – 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).
Order of demolition
Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 -- Notice -- Issuance of notice and delivery of order of demolition under Section 269 of the Act, before the demolition are mandatory in nature. Surender Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 479 (P&H).
Out of turn Quota
Government Residences [Chandigarh Administration General Pool] Allotment Rules, 1996 -- Allotment of Government accommodation – Discretionary 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).
Ownership or conscious possession of the house where slaughter took place
Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 -- Person contravening Section 3 cannot put up a defense that the act of slaughter was being done in a place, of which he is not the owner or in respect of which he does not have the conscious possession -- High Court’s finding that the guilt of the accused persons has not been proved in the absence of proof of their ownership or conscious possession of the house where slaughter took place, is a finding which is de-hors the said Act and is clearly not legally sustainable -- Case of the accused persons is not covered under the exceptions in Section 4. State of Haryana v. Rajmal & another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 521 (SC).
Owning of School
Appointment of Lambardar – 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).
No comments:
Post a Comment