Local Acts Reporter 2011(3) L.A.R. ............ Latest Laws

Qualifications

Appointment of Lambardar – 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).

Appointment of Lambardar – 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).

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).

Question of title

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (Haryana) – Ejectment petition – Petitioners have raised a legitimate question of title and prima facie proved it, by producing the sale certificate, copy of the site plan and other related documents -- Held, it was incumbent upon and the statutory/mandatory duty of the A.C. Ist Grade to first decide the question of title and without deciding the question of title at the first instance, he was not legally competent to pass the ejectment order. Kanhi Ram and another v. Gram Panchayat Dhani Silawali and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 337 (P&H).

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (Haryana) – Ejectment petition – Clear and explicit intention of the legislature underlying Section 7 has to be respected and complied with in the manner commanded by the Act -- Command of the legislature is mandatory and the procedure of deciding the question of title, at the first instance, is to avoid unscrupulous ejectments. Kanhi Ram and another v. Gram Panchayat Dhani Silawali and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 337 (P&H).

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (Haryana) – Ejectment petition – It was imperative and the statutory duty of the A.C. Ist Grade to first decide the question of title and without deciding it as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 7, he was not legally competent to order the ejectment in a routine fashion. Hazari and others v. The Gram Panchayat Khatoti Sultanpur and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 344 (P&H).

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (Haryana) – Ejectment petition – For deciding the question of title as escalated u/s 7 of the Act, the A.C.Ist Grade did not afford adequate opportunity to the petitioners to lead their evidence -- Authorities below ought to have discussed the evidence brought on record and were legally required to record valid reasons for arriving at a right conclusion, in order to decide the real controversy -- Such statutory authorities, exercising the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as envisaged under Section 7 (3) of the Act, should act independently instead of functioning as a representative of the State/G.P – Every action of such authority must be informed by reasons, order must be fair, clear, reasonable and in the interest of fair play -- Matter is remitted back to the concerned A.C.Ist Grade, for its fresh decision, on the question of title after affording adequate opportunities to the parties to lead their respective evidence in accordance with law. Hazari and others v. The Gram Panchayat Khatoti Sultanpur and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 344 (P&H).

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (Haryana) -- Petition indicates that the petition had been filed by the proprietors of the village u/s 7 of the Act seeking a declaration regarding their ownership over the land -- Commissioner itself indicates that challenge to order of Collector was made under Section 13-B (2) of the Act -- No occasion for the petitioner even to construe that the proceedings had been initiated u/s 13-A of the Act. Gram Panchayat Village Bajghera v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 329 (P&H).

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (Haryana) – Second Revision – Maintainability of -- Second revision before the Financial Commissioner is not maintainable, in context of proceedings initiated under Section 7 of the Act. Gram Panchayat Village Bajghera v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 329 (P&H).