Panch elected
Notification of -- When no B.C.category candidate was available, then the post of Panch was converted into S.C.category vide order/Notification -- Petitioner was declared elected as a Panch in S.C.category -- Held, official respondents were statutorily duty bound to notify the election of Panch of the petitioner in S.C.category -- Official respondents directed to notify the election of the petitioner as a Panch in S.C. category of the Gram Panchayat within a period of 15 days. Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 613 (P&H).
Partition of land
Jurisdiction of Civil court -- Jurisdiction of Revenue court -- When the agricultural land before partition loses its nature as such by the acts of the parties, particularly, who is seeking partition, then such land cannot be partitioned by the revenue Court -- A co-sharer can raise an objection that the land, which has been shown in the revenue record as agricultural and assessed to land revenue, should not be partitioned as the same due to the acts of the other co-sharer, who is seeking partition, loses its nature as an agricultural land -- Revenue authorities were fully justified while coming to the conclusion that with the subsequent wide constructions raised, the land in dispute cannot be partitioned by the revenue Court -- Since the revenue Court itself has held that the appellant can approach the Civil Court, the bar created by Section 158(2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act will not come in the way. Surjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner Appeals-II, Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 366 (P&H DB).
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.).
Partition proceedings
Correction of Khasra Girdawari -- During the pendency of partition proceedings, it is not advisable to change khasra girdawari of land in dispute in favour of particular share holders which will lead to multiplicity of litigation. Daljit Singh v. Amrik Singh, 2011(3) L.A.R. 661 (FC Pb.).
Penalty
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Appeal – Condition for deposit of penalty – Interpretation of -- No provision as to what is to happen to the amount so deposited for entertaining the appeal, if ultimately appellant succeeds -- Section not only bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court but has given finality to the order passed and the same can not be questioned in any manner in any Civil Court -- In order to save the validity of this proviso, it may have to be read down for which there are precedents -- To avoid injustice and unnecessary expense, the proviso to the Section may have to be read down to include the right to waive the condition by the appellate Judge in an appropriate case. Ranjit Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 48 (P&H).
Pendency of appeal
Sanad lambardari – There was no misconduct in obtaining the sanad lambardari despite an appeal having been filed against the Collector's order. Ram Sarup v. Sohan Lal, 2011(3) L.A.R. 653 (FC Pb.).
Pendency of Partition proceedings
Correction of Khasra Girdawari -- During the pendency of partition proceedings, it is not advisable to change khasra girdawari of land in dispute in favour of particular share holders which will lead to multiplicity of litigation. Daljit Singh v. Amrik Singh, 2011(3) L.A.R. 661 (FC Pb.).
Pendency of Surplus land proceedings
Landowner died – 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).
Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (13 of 1955)
Section 7 -- Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 42,44 – Arrears of rent – Ejectment -- Section 7 of Pepsu Tenancy Act, must be read as providing to a tenant an additional period of what the Punjab Tenancy Act provides – It will be wrong to assume that a landlord could decide to exclude the provisions of Pepsu Tenancy Law by applying under the Punjab Tenancy Act – The application of Acts cannot be made to be dependent on the personal whims of a landlord. Joginder Singh and others v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 676 (P&H).
Personal necessity
Rent Laws -- No evidence brought on record by the tenants that the landlady had any other accommodation or has vacated similar building after the commencement of the Act in the same urban area -- Tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlady -- Need has been shown to be of widowed daughter and her grown up son and in the absence of her husband, the landlady has the only support of her widowed daughter and her grown up son – Eviction order on the ground of personal necessity upheld. M/s Banarsi Dass Varinder Kumar v. Smt.Pritam Kaur, 2011(3) L.A.R. 114 (P&H).
Pleadings
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act -- Bonafide need – Landlord failed to plead the ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act but had led evidence to that effect, then non-pleading of the ingredients would not be fatal to warrant dismissal of the application for ejectment. Baldev Raj's case 2006(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 193, Parkash Ram's case 2007(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 186, Daulat Ram's case 1980 PLR 182 relied. Gurbaj Singh v. Parshotam Singh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 294 (P&H).
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act -- Bonafide need – Whether the tenant can raise the question of noncompliance of mandatory provisions of Section 13(3)(a) (i) of the Act even if he did not question it in his reply nor ask for any issue in this regard for the purpose of trial? – Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that mere nonpleading of a fact, which is enshrined in the statute, can always be rectified if a relevant objection is taken at the initial stage – Besides, as per Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, every allegation of fact, if not denied specifically, is taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability. Gurbaj Singh v. Parshotam Singh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 294 (P&H).
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act -- Bonafide need for son -- If the premises is required by the landlord for use and occupation of his son, the son of the landlord is not required to plead all the ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act if he himself is not the landlord of the premises. Gurbaj Singh v. Parshotam Singh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 294 (P&H).
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act -- Bonafide need to start business – Subsequent events -- Court at any stage of proceedings can take into consideration subsequent events and mould the relief -- On the issue of non-pleadings of ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act, if the landlord had failed to plead the ingredients but led evidence to that effect then the nonpleadings of ingredients is not fatal – Landlords have now got residential house vacated and are held to be having a bona fide necessity of the demised premises (SCF), which has been duly established on the basis of evidence led – Eviction order upheld. Vishal Garg v. Kanwaljit Kaur and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 92 (P&H).
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 -- Bonafide need – Landlord pleaded that he required the demised shop for his own business after his retirement -- Landlord is the best judge of his needs -- Argument raised is that necessary ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Rent Act have not been pleaded and proved – If such necessary ingredients are not pleaded, the landlord is required to be provided with an opportunity to make necessary pleadings and it was imperative for the tenant to raise an objection in the written statement at the earliest to the effect that the necessary ingredients were not pleaded -- It is not necessary to plead all the ingredients in the ejectment application, but there must be evidence for proving the same – Eviction order upheld. Surinder Dhingra v. Bhim Sain Arora, 2011(3) L.A.R. 230 (P&H).
Post of Lambardar
Abolition of post – Power/Jurisdiction of High Court -- High Court did not have the power/jurisdiction to direct the State Government to amend the Act/relevant Rules to abolish the age-old very important institution of the Lambardar and to further amend the other relevant Acts to assign the duties to the Panchayati Raj Act/Institutions in this relevant connection. Satpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 636 (P&H).
Post-wise entitlement
Government Residences [Chandigarh Administration General Pool] Allotment Rules, 1996 – Allotment of Government accommodation – Held, no new house for any category/post should be earmarked unless the house already earmarked for such category/post has been vacated and placed in the general pool of the Chandigarh Administration for allotment in accordance with the Allotment Rules. Mrs. Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 504 (SC).
Power of Appellate Authority
Appointment of Lambardar – Comparative merits – Candidate appointed by Collector was convicted u/s 188 IPC in the year 1998, and is less educated as compared to the petitioner and does not own any land in his name -- Petitioner, to the contrary, is ex-army personnel with commendations to his credit -- Service rendered to the country, while in the Army, cannot be ignored -- Petitioner owns approximately 18 kanals of land, and is more educated -- Commissioner did not commit any illegality in interfering with the order passed by Collector, considering the comparative merit, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case -- Higher education, Ex-Army status, conviction and land holding are relevant criteria to be taken into account -- If this is not done, it shall be failure on the part of the appellate authority in exercising its appellate powers. Samai Singh v. State of Haryana & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 406 (P&H).
Appointment of Lambardar – Comparative merits – Commissioner is the appellate authority and is required to consider the facts and circumstances of the case, including comparative merit. Samai Singh v. State of Haryana & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 406 (P&H).
Arbitration award -- Cooperative Society itself had not preferred an appeal against the award and there could not have been a modification for its benefit by casting the entire liability on the petitioner -- A power, which a Civil Court may have under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC cannot avail in a statutory appeal, which are governed by its own procedures. Jagir Singh v. Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar Division with Head Quarter at Chandigarh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 349 (P&H).
Power of Attorney
Scope of -- Transfer of property – A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property -- Power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorizes the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him -- It is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law -- Even an irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of transferring title to the grantee -- An attorney holder may however execute a deed of conveyance in exercise of the power granted under the power of attorney and convey title on behalf of the grantor. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 593 (SC).
Power of Director Consolidation
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 -- Shamlat land -- Shamlat land -- Exchange of land – Director Consolidation Haryana allowed the exchange, de hors the powers vested in Director Consolidation u/s 42 of the Consolidation Act – Property falling in shamlat deh can only be exchanged if the provisions of 1961 Act and the Rules are complied with not only in letter but also in their spirit -- None of the conditions provided under Rule 5 of the Rules has been followed, rather, under a Statute which is alien to the issue, exchange of Gram Panchayat land has been allowed -- Held, exchange of land of Gram Panchayat allowed by Director Consolidation, is clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and for reasons de hors the law that governs such issues -- Order is also fanciful, injudicious, irresponsible and unaccountable. Maherdin & others v. Smt. Medha & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 119 (P&H).
Power of Enquiry officer
Suspension/Removal of Sarpanch -- Preliminary Enquiry -- Exoneration from charges – It cannot possibly be saith that once the petitioner was exonerated on the basis of preliminary enquiry by the Appellate Authority, without impleading the complainant as a party, then the Enquiry Officer becomes functus officio and cannot proceed with the regular enquiry --– Enquiry Officer has rightly summoned the petitioner and he has power and jurisdiction to conduct the regular enquiry against her in this context. Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 392 (P&H).
Power of High Court
Post of Lambardar – Abolition of post – High Court did not have the power/jurisdiction to direct the State Government to amend the Act/relevant Rules to abolish the age-old very important institution of the Lambardar and to further amend the other relevant Acts to assign the duties to the Panchayati Raj Act/Institutions in this relevant connection. Satpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 636 (P&H).
Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 (7 of 1882)
Section 1A,2 -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 53A, 54, 55 – Transfer of property – Scope of Power of Attorney -- A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property -- Power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorizes the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him -- It is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law -- Even an irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of transferring title to the grantee -- An attorney holder may however execute a deed of conveyance in exercise of the power granted under the power of attorney and convey title on behalf of the grantor. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 593 (SC).
Section 1A,2 -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 53A, 54, 55 – Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 69,70 -- Transfer by Sale agreement/General Power of Attorney/Will – Law summarized -- SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property – Held, Immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance -- Transactions of the nature of ‘GPA sales’ or ‘SA/GPA/WILL transfers’ do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property -- Courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property – They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of section 53A of the TP Act -- Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records -- What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property -- A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered Assignment of Lease -- It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/WILL transactions known as GPA sales -- SA/GPA/WILL transactions are not ‘transfers’ or ‘sales’ and that such transactions cannot be treated as completed transfers or conveyances -- They can continue to be treated as existing agreement of sale -- Nothing prevents affected parties from getting registered Deeds of Conveyance to complete their title -- The said ‘SA/GPA/WILL transactions’ may also be used to obtain specific performance or to defend possession under section 53A of TP Act -- If they are entered before this day, they may be relied upon to apply for regularization of allotments/leases by Development Authorities -- Documents relating to ‘SA/GPA/WILL transactions’ has been accepted acted upon by DDA or other developmental authorities or by the Municipal or revenue authorities to effect mutation, they need not be disturbed, merely on account of this decision – However observations are not intended to in any way affect the validity of sale agreements and powers of attorney executed in genuine transactions -- For example, A person may give a power of attorney to his spouse, son, daughter, brother, sister or a relative to manage his affairs or to execute a deed of conveyance -- A person may enter into a development agreement with a land developer or builder for developing the land either by forming plots or by constructing apartment buildings and in that behalf execute an agreement of sale and grant a Power of Attorney empowering the developer to execute agreements of sale or conveyances in regard to individual plots of land or undivided shares in the land relating to apartments in favour of prospective purchasers -- In several States, the execution of such development agreements and powers of attorney are already regulated by law and subjected to specific stamp duty -- Observations regarding ‘SA/GPA/WILL transactions’ are not intended to apply to such bonafide/genuine transactions. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 593 (SC).
Preliminary enquiry
Panchayat Laws -- Suspension of Sarpanch/Panch -- Writ jurisdiction – 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/Removal of Sarpanch -- Exoneration from charges – Regular enquiry – It cannot possibly be saith that once the petitioner was exonerated on the basis of preliminary enquiry by the Appellate Authority, without impleading the complainant as a party, then the Enquiry Officer becomes functus officio and cannot proceed with the regular enquiry --– Enquiry Officer has rightly summoned the petitioner and he has power and jurisdiction to conduct the regular enquiry against her in this context. Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 392 (P&H).
Suspension/Removal of Sarpanch -- Exoneration from charges – Regular enquiry – Scope of -- Taking cognizance of the report of the preliminary enquiry, the Director suspended the Sarpanch, as an interim measure – Sarpanch was reinstated by the Appellate Authority, without impleading the complainant as a party or providing opportunity of being heard to him, on a technical ground, but that ipso facto is not a ground to exonerate, on the basis of preliminary enquiry, unless she is found innocent during the course of regular enquiry in this relevant connection. Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 392 (P&H).
Suspension/Removal of Sarpanch -- Regular Enquiry – Scope of -- Scope of preliminary enquiry relevant for the purpose of suspension of Sarpanch, is entirely distinct, than that of the regime of regular enquiry, for the purpose of removal of Sarpanch -- At the time of preliminary enquiry, a prima facie case is to be considered for a limited purpose of suspension, while during the course of regular enquiry, the matter has to be examined in detail, after receiving the evidence in support of respective stands of the parties, for the purpose of removal of a Sarpanch -- Authority conducting the regular enquiry possesses a wider jurisdiction, as compared with the officer dealing with the preliminary enquiry -- Preliminary enquiry conducted in a summary manner during the course of limited jurisdiction, cannot oust the larger jurisdiction of a officer conducting the regular enquiry, even if both the enquiries are manned by the same person -- Authority dealing with the regular enquiry has to adopt the appropriate procedure and in the preliminary enquiry, summary procedure is to be followed. Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 392 (P&H).
Presiding officer on leave
Rent Laws -- Unanticipated holidays – Duties of the parties -- 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).
Presumption of genuineness
Certified copy of Public document –Compromise, part of the decree is a public document -- A certified copy of a public document is admissible in evidence without being proved by calling witness -- There is presumption as to the genuineness of such certified copy. Jaswant Singh v. Gurdev Singh & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 632 (SC).
Procedure for declaration of Surplus land
Declaration of land surplus in 1960 – Challenged in the year, 1986 and to the petitioners' avail is a justification that the State never informed or communicated the order of declaration of surplus in form-F Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules – Held, petitioners' case requires favourable consideration only by the fact that a declaration of surplus cannot be operative on its own unless the procedure as prescribed under law is followed and the landowner has been allowed to participate in the proceedings before the decision is taken -- Impugned order is set aside -- State shall be at liberty to take appropriate action for determination of surplus in the light of provisions of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. Achhpal Singh alias Sunda and others v. The State of Haryana, through the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department, Chandigarh, and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 610 (P&H).
Public document
Compromise, part of the decree is a public document -- A certified copy of a public document is admissible in evidence without being proved by calling witness -- Genuineness of certified copy not challenged in any manner, although the record of the Court has been proved to be burnt in a fire in Judicial Record Room – There is presumption as to the genuineness of such certified copy. Jaswant Singh v. Gurdev Singh & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 632 (SC).
Public purpose
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Acquisition of land – 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).
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Acquisition of land – 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 -- 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).
Publication of list on website
Government Residences [Chandigarh Administration General Pool] Allotment Rules, 1996 – Allotment of Government accommodation – Objections – Need of – 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).
Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961)
Section 13(8), 68, 69 – Compulsory bifurcation of society – Revision – Maintainability of -- An order of compulsory bifurcation passed by the Registrar u/s 13(8) of the Act, against which no appeal has been provided u/s 68 of the Punjab Act, is revisable on an application filed by the aggrieved party u/s 69 of the Punjab Act. Jasbir Singh and others v. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 1 (P&H FB).
Section 55 – Termination of employee of Society – Service dispute of an employee of Society -- Reference to Registrar -- Maintainability of -- Dispute relating to the termination or any other service dispute of an employee of the co-operative society is not referable to the arbitration because such disputes have nothing to do either with the constitution, management or business of the co-operative society. Jasbir Singh and others v. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 1 (P&H FB).
Section 56, 68 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 33 -- Arbitration award -- Appeal – Appellate Court -- Power of -- Cooperative Society itself had not preferred an appeal against the award and there could not have been a modification for its benefit by casting the entire liability on the petitioner -- A power, which a Civil Court may have under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC cannot avail in a statutory appeal, which are governed by its own procedures. Jagir Singh v. Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar Division with Head Quarter at Chandigarh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 349 (P&H).
Section 68, 69 – Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984), Section 114, 115 – Revision – Maintainability of – Remedy of revision is barred only in case where appeal against the impugned order lies u/s 68 of the Punjab Act or u/s 114 of the Haryana Act. Jasbir Singh and others v. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 1 (P&H FB).
Section 68, 69 – Revision – Interim order – Stay of award -- Right of – Award against the petitioners for recovery of Rs. 6,91,448/- -- Appeal u/s 68 of the Act dismissed -- Revision challenging the award as well as dismissal of the appeal -- Held, if revision is admitted, ordinarily stay should be granted subject to deposit of part of award amount or on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Revisional Authority -- Without calling any security or without granting any opportunity to the revisionists to deposit the award amount, stay application was rejected which is not correct – Petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 3 lacs in cash before the Revisional Authority, subject to the final decision in the revision and if Rs. 3 lacs are deposited with the Revisional Authority within three weeks, recovery of the award amount shall remain stay. Promila Suri and others v. The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 47 (P&H).
Section 69 – Dismissal of employee of Society – Appeal under Common Cadre Rules – 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).
Section 69 – Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984), Section 115 – Revision – Maintainability of – Suo-motu powers -- State Government or the Registrar u/s 69 of the Punjab Act and the State Government u/s 115 of the Haryana Act can exercise its suo motu revisional jurisdiction on the application made by an aggrieved person, whether he is or not a party to the reference. Jasbir Singh and others v. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 1 (P&H FB).
Section 69 – Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984), Section 115 – Service matter of Society -- Revision – Maintainability of – Remedy of revision is not barred in those cases where aggrieved person has a right of appeal under the Statutory Service Rules or Common Cadre Rules -- An aggrieved party can challenge the order of Registrar or Deputy Registrar passed as an Appellate Authority under the Statutory Rules or Common Cadre Rules by filing a revision u/s 69 of the Punjab Act or u/s 115 of the Haryana Act as no remedy of appeal has been provided u/s 68 of the Punjab Act or u/s 114 of the Haryana Act against such order -- But, if the appellate order is passed by the official of the Society and not by the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Society, no revision is maintainable against such an order -- Revision is maintainable only against the order passed by the authority under the Act or a proceeding arising out of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Jasbir Singh and others v. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 1 (P&H FB).
Section 69 – Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984), Section 115 – Revision – Maintainability of – Suo motu power -- Remedy of revision either suo motu or otherwise cannot be invoked against an order passed by the Society -- The said power can be exercised against the decision or order passed by the authority under the Act or a proceeding arising out of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Jasbir Singh and others v. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 1 (P&H FB).
Section 69 – Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984), Section 115 – Revision – Maintainability of -- Suo motu power -- Suo motu power of revision cannot be exercised by the State Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, where a revision u/s 69 of the Punjab Act or u/s 115 of the Haryana Act itself is not maintainable either on the ground that against the impugned order an appeal has been provided u/s 68 of the Punjab Act or u/s 114 of the Haryana Act or on any other ground -- - In case the Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, exercise suo motu power of revision on the application of an aggrieved party or otherwise, it must be specifically so stated in the order itself. Jasbir Singh and others v. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 1 (P&H FB).
Section 69 – Representation – Non deciding of – Revision – Maintainability of -- Revision petition u/s 69 of the Act against the inaction of the Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, to consider and decide his representation for assignment of his seniority in accordance with the MARKFED Common Cadre Rules, and consequently for promotion to the Technical Officer, has been dismissed being not maintainable -- Admittedly, no order was passed by an authority in a proceeding arising under the Act -- Petitioner is challenging the inaction of the society by not deciding his representation -- No revision against the action or inaction of the society is maintainable u/s 69 of the Punjab Act. Jasbir Singh and others v. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 1 (P&H FB).
Section 84-A, 85(2)(xxxviii) – Service Rules of Societies – Condition and service of employees – Nature of -- There categories of Service Rules can be framed to regulate the conditions of service of the employees of the Society -- In first category, a registered Society under the Societies Act can frame its own Service Rules to regulate the service conditions of its employees, the Rules may be binding between the Society and its employees -- Second category of the Rules is those rules which are formulated u/s 85(2) (xxxviii), which empower the Government to frame Service Rules for any Co-operative Society or for class of societies with regard to qualifications for employees of a Society or class of society and the conditions of service subject to which persons may be employed by Societies, such Rules so framed have the force of Statute and are deemed to be incorporated as a part of the Statute, whereas this principle does not apply to the first category of Rules framed by the Society because those Rules merely govern the internal management, business or administration of a society -- Similarly, there is third category of Rules known as Common Cadre Rules -- These rules could have been framed u/s 84-A of the Punjab Act which provide that an apex society may suo motu and when required to do so by the Registrar shall constitute a common cadre of all, or specified class of employee in the service of that society or in the service of the central societies which are members of the apex society or in the service of the primary societies which are members of the apex society -- Common Cadre Rules framed under sub-section (2) by the Registrar are also having the statutory colour and stand on the same footing as that of the Statutory Rules. Jasbir Singh and others v. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 1 (P&H FB).
Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (6 of 1918)
Section 41 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Substantial question of law - Second appeal shall only lie to High Court u/s 100 C.P.C. on a substantial question of law – Though question of law was not framed at the time of admission of present appeal, however, High Court can formulate question of law as contemplated u/s 100 of the Code at any point of time before hearing of the appeal, even without amending the grounds of appeal -- It is the duty of the court to formulate substantial question of law while hearing the appeal u/s 100(4) and 100(5) of the Code and question of law can be permitted to be raised at any stage of proceedings. Kamla Wati and others v. The Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, Government of India, New Delhi and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 126 (P&H).
Punjab Land Administration Manual
Para 307 – Function of Lambardar -- Village communities, landowners, tenants and other residents, function and deal with the State functionaries through Lambardar -- Besides the other duties, the Lambardars are also required to collect and pay into the treasury the land revenue, to report to the Tehsildar, to aid in carrying out harvest inspections, surveys etc., to render all possible assistance to the village postman, while passing the night in the village, in safeguarding the cash and other valuables that he carries and to assist the authorities during the course of consolidation proceedings. Satpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 636 (P&H).
Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (10 of 1973)
Section 6,8,9 – Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 2(5a) – Surplus area – Non-utilization of – Right of purchaser – Necessary Party -- Punjab Land Reforms Act came into force -- If a property is unutilized and it had not taken possession by the Government, the re-determination would require to be done under the Land Reforms Act, 1972 -- If on that date the property is in the hands of purchaser who has purchased the property even before the appointed date namely on 24.1.1971, then he shall be a person affected and further proceedings cannot go without joining such a purchaser -- Purchasers themselves are statutorily protected -- Objections of such purchasers have to be heard before declaration of surplus. Kulip Singh and another v. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 679 (P&H).
Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887 (XVII of 1887)
Section 1 – Object of Act -- Act was enacted with respect to making and maintenance of records-of-rights of land holdings, the assessment and collection of land revenue, other matters relating to land and the liabilities incident thereto and to provide a procedure for preparation of record-of-rights of different types of land held by the owners or tenure holders and collection of land revenue, other cess and taxes etc. Satpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 636 (P&H).
Section 3 -- Land Revenue – Role of Lambardar -- 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).
Section 3 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 14, 15 -- Post of Lambardar -- Age-old institution of Lambardar is an integral and significant part of the revenue system and cannot possibly be severed from the scheme, as contemplated under the Act and relevant Rules -- Mere enactment of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the fact that some of the Lambardars are involved in criminal cases, ipso facto, are not the cogent grounds to abolish the significant integral and ancient institution of Lambardars. Satpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 636 (P&H).
Section 3(11) – Village officer – Lambardar/Village Headmen -- 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).
Section 13 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Appellate Authority’s jurisdiction -- Once the Commissioner came to the conclusion that education wise both the candidates are equally placed and only in the case of land holding in the village, other candidate is having an edge over the appellant, no justification for the Commissioner to set aside the order of the Collector, merely on the ground that the name of appointed candidate was not recommended by the lower revenue staff. Sucha Singh v. The Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 305 (P&H DB).
Section 13 – Appointment of Lambardar – Comparative merits – Power of Appellate Authority -- Commissioner is the appellate authority and is required to consider the facts and circumstances of the case, including comparative merit. Samai Singh v. State of Haryana & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 406 (P&H).
Section 13 – Appointment of Lambardar – Comparative merits – Power of Appellate Authority -- Candidate appointed by Collector was convicted u/s 188 IPC in the year 1998, and is less educated as compared to the petitioner and does not own any land in his name -- Petitioner, to the contrary, is ex-army personnel with commendations to his credit -- Service rendered to the country, while in the Army, cannot be ignored -- Petitioner owns approximately 18 kanals of land, and is more educated -- Commissioner did not commit any illegality in interfering with the order passed by Collector, considering the comparative merit, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case -- Higher education, Ex-Army status, conviction and land holding are relevant criteria to be taken into account -- If this is not done, it shall be failure on the part of the appellate authority in exercising its appellate powers. Samai Singh v. State of Haryana & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 406 (P&H).
Section 13, 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – Interference in -- Petitioner is younger and more educated than the respondent and also has a larger land holding -- Thus it can safely be held that there was no material irregularity or perversity in his appointment as lambardar by the District Collector – Held, No sufficient ground for the Commissioner to set aside the order of the District Collector. Sukhwinder Singh v. Duman Singh, 2011(3) L.A.R. 663 (FC Pb.).
Section 13, 15-- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 14, 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Collector is the appointing authority of the Lambardar -- It is the duty of the Collector to appoint such persons in the office of Lambardar, who are eligible and competent to carry out the duties efficiently -- He is in an advantageous position to examine the merits and demerits of the candidates -- Choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of village Lambardar should not normally be interfered with, unless the Collector has taken a perverse view and has not exercised his choice judiciously. Satpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 636 (P&H).
Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Decision of the Collector can only be upset when higher authorities or this Court finds that Collector has been mislead by irrelevant factors or has escaped any important material while considering the candidature or action of the Collector seems to be out of extraneous consideration. Amarjit Kaur v. Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 89 (P&H).
Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Neither Divisional Commissioner nor Financial Commissioner had recorded any finding that the Collector has over-looked any important material, which would have resulted in the different opinion or action of the Collector is out of extraneous consideration or Collector was mislead by placing irrelevant record before him -- Order of the Collector ought not to have been disturbed by the authorities below. Amarjit Kaur v. Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 89 (P&H).
Section 13, 16 – Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – Interference in -- Respondent No.4 is more educated -- No disability or ineligibility in the merit of respondent No.4 can be traced -- Merit is comparative -- Grand father of respondent No.4 was a Lambardar, it cannot be ruled out that respondent No.4 has some experience of lambardari -- Discretion exercised by the District Collector is not perverse in any manner or arbitrary in effect -- No interference in the order of District Collector was called for. Kuldeep Singh v. State of Haryana & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 81 (P&H).
Section 13, 16 – Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – Interference in -- Choice exercised by the Collector normally is not to be interfered with except where the order discloses lack of jurisdiction or an error of fact, so as to render his order arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable – Commissioner was not justified in interfering with the choice exercised by the Collector on the ground that other candidates are more meritorious -- Financial Commissioner was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner. Darshan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner Punjab & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 291 (P&H).
Section 13, 16 – Appointment of Lambardar – Remand of case – Reasons not given – Effect of -- Financial Commissioner could have remanded the case only if some thing else was to be considered and some thing had escaped attention which ought to have been considered -- Nothing is recorded in the order which would show as to what had not been considered by the Collector, which was relevant for consideration -- Order remanding the case to the Collector, thus, cannot be sustained. Darshan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner Punjab & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 291 (P&H).
Sections 13, 16 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rules 15, 16 – Appointment of Lambardar – Sarbrah Lambardar -- Collector appointed the appellant as Lambardar – Choice of the Collector is to be upheld unless and until it suffers from any patent illegality or perversity – Previous lambardar, who was father of the respondent, died in 1990 -- Being Sarbrah lambardar and the son of deceased lambardar, it was his duty to inform about the death of previous lambardar to the revenue authorities to initiate action for appointment of new lambardar -- But the respondent failed to perform his duty and action for appointment of new lambardar could be initiated only in 2005 – Obviously respondent acted in a irresponsible way – In merit also, appellant has edge over the respondent being more educated and younger in age – Order of the Collector is well reasoned and justified and deserve to be upheld. Mehar Singh @ Bharpur Singh v. Pritpal Singh, 2011(3) L.A.R. 657 (FC Pb.).
Section 16 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rules 14, 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Sanad lambardari – Pendency of appeal – Effect of -- There was no misconduct in obtaining the sanad lambardari despite an appeal having been filed against the Collector's order. Ram Sarup v. Sohan Lal, 2011(3) L.A.R. 653 (FC Pb.).
Section 16 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rules 14, 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – Interference in -- Notice of the appeal had not been served upon the appellant at the time when he sought the issuance of the sanad – No ground to view the appellant's conduct as suspicious – Respondent is slightly more educated than the appellant -- These facts by themselves are not sufficient to interfere with the choice of the Collector. Ram Sarup v. Sohan Lal, 2011(3) L.A.R. 653 (FC Pb.).
Section 34 – Mutation -- Registered Will -- No challenge to the execution of the Will in favour of the petitioners has been raised -- Revenue officers should generally act as per the terms of registered document, leaving the aggrieved party to seek redress in a civil court -- Mutation is sanctioned in favour of the petitioners on the basis of registered will. Kulwant Kaur v. Surjit Kaur, 2011(3) L.A.R. 659 (FC Pb.).
Section 111, 121 – Partition of land – Objections -- 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.).
Sections 111, 121 – Mode of partition – Re-framing of mode of partition – Legality of -- Contention that once the Mode of Partition framed in 1994 had become final, there was no occasion for the Assistant Collector Grade-I to reframe the Mode of Partition in 2005 -- No irregularity on part of the Assistant Collector Grade-1 in revisiting the situation after a lapse of 11 years, especially since no substantial proceedings had taken place. Nisha Ram v. Bhagat Ram, 2011(3) L.A.R. 655 (FC Pb.).
Sections 111, 121 – Mode of partition – Non-challenging to – Effect of -- Petitioner did not challenge the Mode of Partition, as such, it has to be held that the Mode of Partition had become final and the partition finalized on its basis should be upheld. Nisha Ram v. Bhagat Ram, 2011(3) L.A.R. 655 (FC Pb.).
Sections 34, 111-121 – Partition proceedings – Pendency of -- Correction of Khasra Girdawari -- During the pendency of partition proceedings, it is not advisable to change khasra girdawari of land in dispute in favour of particular share holders which will lead to multiplicity of litigation. Daljit Singh v. Amrik Singh, 2011(3) L.A.R. 661 (FC Pb.).
Section 111, 158(2) – Partition of agricultural land – Jurisdiction of Civil court -- Jurisdiction of Revenue court -- When the agricultural land before partition loses its nature as such by the acts of the parties, particularly, who is seeking partition, then such land cannot be partitioned by the revenue Court -- A co-sharer can raise an objection that the land, which has been shown in the revenue record as agricultural and assessed to land revenue, should not be partitioned as the same due to the acts of the other co-sharer, who is seeking partition, loses its nature as an agricultural land -- Revenue authorities were fully justified while coming to the conclusion that with the subsequent wide constructions raised, the land in dispute cannot be partitioned by the revenue Court -- Since the revenue Court itself has held that the appellant can approach the Civil Court, the bar created by Section 158(2) of the Land Revenue Act will not come in the way. Surjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner Appeals-II, Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 366 (P&H DB).
Punjab Land Revenue Rules
Rule 14, 15 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 3 -- Post of Lambardar -- Age-old institution of Lambardar is an integral and significant part of the revenue system and cannot possibly be severed from the scheme, as contemplated under the Act and relevant Rules -- Mere enactment of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the fact that some of the Lambardars are involved in criminal cases, ipso facto, are not the cogent grounds to abolish the significant integral and ancient institution of Lambardars. Satpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 636 (P&H).
Rule 14, 15 – Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 15-- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Collector is the appointing authority of the Lambardar -- It is the duty of the Collector to appoint such persons in the office of Lambardar, who are eligible and competent to carry out the duties efficiently -- He is in an advantageous position to examine the merits and demerits of the candidates -- Choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of village Lambardar should not normally be interfered with, unless the Collector has taken a perverse view and has not exercised his choice judiciously. Satpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 636 (P&H).
Rules 14, 15 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Sanad lambardari – Pendency of appeal – Effect of -- There was no misconduct in obtaining the sanad lambardari despite an appeal having been filed against the Collector's order. Ram Sarup v. Sohan Lal, 2011(3) L.A.R. 653 (FC Pb.).
Rules 14, 15 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – Interference in -- Notice of the appeal had not been served upon the appellant at the time when he sought the issuance of the sanad – No ground to view the appellant's conduct as suspicious – Respondent is slightly more educated than the appellant -- These facts by themselves are not sufficient to interfere with the choice of the Collector. Ram Sarup v. Sohan Lal, 2011(3) L.A.R. 653 (FC Pb.).
Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – Owning of School -- Effect of -- 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).
Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – Owning of School – Effect of -- Merely because petitioner is running a school, would not mean that she will not be available in the village to perform duties of Lambardar. Amarjit Kaur v. Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 89 (P&H).
Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – Qualification – 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).
Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – Qualification -- Whether a Lambardar is expected to be unemployed or merely engaged in agricultural activities? – Held, 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).
Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – Qualifications – Disqualifications -- 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).
Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Recommendation of revenue authorities -- Recommendation made by the lower revenue staff is not binding on the Collector, who is the appointing authority of Lambardar. Sucha Singh v. The Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 305 (P&H DB).
Rule 15 -- Post of Lambardar – Abolition of post – Power/Jurisdiction of High Court -- High Court did not have the power/jurisdiction to direct the State Government to amend the Act/relevant Rules to abolish the age-old very important institution of the Lambardar and to further amend the other relevant Acts to assign the duties to the Panchayati Raj Act/Institutions in this relevant connection. Satpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 636 (P&H).
Rule 15(d)(e) -- Appointment of Lambardar – Caste – Consideration of -- Under Rule 15(d) and (e), personal influence, strength and importance of the community from which selection of headman is to be made, are relevant factors to be considered -- In such circumstances, Collector having mentioned the population of a particular community is not entirely de hors the controversy. Fakir Chand v. State of Haryana & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 683 (P&H).
Rules 15, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – District Collector ignored the petitioner being not the permanent resident of village and he is residing in another village – Petitioner has got prepared his ration card and voter list in both villages which puts question mark on his trustworthiness – Commissioner upheld the order of Collector -- No illegality/irregularity or any perversity in the order of lower revenue Courts. Sukhdev Raj v. Ranjit Singh, 2011(3) L.A.R. 664 (FC Pb.).
Rules 15, 16 – Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, Sections 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Sarbrah Lambardar -- Collector appointed the appellant as Lambardar – Choice of the Collector is to be upheld unless and until it suffers from any patent illegality or perversity – Previous lambardar, who was father of the respondent, died in 1990 -- Being Sarbrah lambardar and the son of deceased lambardar, it was his duty to inform about the death of previous lambardar to the revenue authorities to initiate action for appointment of new lambardar -- But the respondent failed to perform his duty and action for appointment of new lambardar could be initiated only in 2005 – Obviously respondent acted in a irresponsible way – In merit also, appellant has edge over the respondent being more educated and younger in age – Order of the Collector is well reasoned and justified and deserve to be upheld. Mehar Singh @ Bharpur Singh v. Pritpal Singh, 2011(3) L.A.R. 657 (FC Pb.).
Rule 15, 16, 20 – Appointment of Lambardar – Good Character – Acquittal from criminal case -- Effect of -- A person with clean record and good character is required to be appointed as Lambardar who would command respect of the residents in the Estate so as to discharge functions as provided under Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules -- Nature of allegations against the petitioner were that he took admission in B.Ed. course on the basis of a forged certificate, fully knowing that he was not a graduate and therefore, was not qualified to seek admission -- Although petitioner has been acquitted, however, for quite a length of time, criminal proceedings were pending against him in trial -- Apprehension of the Financial Commissioner, that residents of the village would not have due regard for the petitioner so as to give him information as required in discharge of functions by a Lambardar, cannot be said to be without reasonable basis -- No ground for judicial review of the impugned order. Narender Kumar v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 110 (P&H).
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (III of 1911)
Section 63, 67 – Assessment of value of land – Market rent – Standard rent -- Value of the land shall follow the Collector’s circle rates and the value of the buildings shall be in the manner as laid down under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. Satish Chander Sanwalka v. Additional Deputy Commissioner, exercising the power of the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 353 (P&H).
Section 67, 68, 68-A – House Tax – Assessment of annual rental value – Re-assessment of -- Earlier assessment by the Committee was made on the basis of 10 paise per bag, whereas the Administrator raised the annual rental value by enhancing the rent to 16 paise per bag – Statutory provision would show that it clearly vests the power in the Committee to amend the assessment list on the ground of increase or reduction of the annual value of the property – High Court not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Food Corporation of India v. Municipal Committee, Kotakpura & another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 287 (P&H).
Section 172(1) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 – 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).
Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (42 of 1976)
Section 90, 122 – Dealer’s Board -- 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 -- Wherever the Municipal Corporation is able to establish that the business carried on within the land, building, shop or outlet where the Dealer Boards have been erected or displayed does not at all include the sale of the products marketed or distributed, the Corporation shall be at liberty to call upon the Dealer for assessment of the advertisement tax with specific reference to such Dealer Boards and proceed further in accordance with law. Aradhana Drinks & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 69 (P&H DB).
Section 90, 122 – Tax on advertisement -- Interpretation of statute -- When the clear, plain and unambiguous words of a Statute are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning notwithstanding the hardship, inconvenience or other consequences. Aradhana Drinks & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 69 (P&H DB).
Section 90, 122 – Tax on advertisement -- Municipal Corporation is competent to levy a variety of taxes for which it is expressly empowered by the source of taxes contained in sub-Sections (1) & (2) of Section 90 of the Act -- A tax on ‘advertisement’ other than those published in newspapers can also be imposed by a Municipal Corporation under Section 90 (1)(d) of the Act -- Section 122 (1) explains the incidence of tax on advertisements and it says that every person who erects, exhibits, fixes or retains upon or over any land, building, wall, boarding, frame, post or structure or any vehicle any advertisement or who displays any advertisement to public view in any other manner which is visible from a public street or public place including those exhibited by means of cinematograph, is liable to pay tax for every such advertisement at the rates to be specified by the State Government. Aradhana Drinks & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 69 (P&H DB).
Section 90, 122 – Tax on advertisement – Trade – Business – Meaning of -- ‘trade’ or ‘business’ are words of wide import and it cannot be said that only if sales are exclusively carried on in particular good in a building, it can be described as the ‘trade’ or ‘business’ -- “business” is a very spacious expression and in fiscal statutes, it must be construed in a broad rather than restricted sense to include anything which occupies the time, attention and labour of a man for the purpose of profit -- Word “trade” also includes the exchange of goods for goods or goods for money and in a secondary meaning it is any business carried on with a view to profit -- Even a single transaction or event falling within these parameters shall constitute ‘business’ or ‘trade’, as the case may be. Aradhana Drinks & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 69 (P&H DB).
Section 246, 269 – Order of demolition – Notice of -- 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).
Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994
Rule 45 -- Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 19 -- Removal of Sarpanch – No-confidence motion – Effect of -- Section 19 of the Act prescribing the removal of Sarpanch by passing a resolution of 'No Confidence Motion', has already been omitted w.e.f. 14.12.2010 by the State Government -- As the removal of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch has not yet been de-notified, therefore, the mere passing of the alleged Resolution of 'No Confidence Motion', ipso-facto is not sufficient for the removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, unless all other formalities, including the statutory formality of de-notifying the name of Sarpanch in official gazette are complete -- In that eventuality, the petitioner (earlier elected as Sarpanch) will be deemed to continue as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of the village. Malook Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 203 (P&H).
Rule 45 -- Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 19 -- Removal of Sarpanch – No-confidence motion – Effect of -- Section 19 of the Act prescribing the removal of Sarpanch by passing a resolution of No Confidence Motion, has already been omitted w.e.f. 14.12.2010 by the State Government -- Since the removal of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch has not yet been de-notified, so, the mere passing of the alleged resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' ipso-facto is not sufficient for his removal from the post of Sarpanch, unless all the other formalities, including the statutory formality of de-notifying the name of Sarpanch are complete -- In that eventuality, the petitioner (earlier elected as Sarpanch) will be deemed to continue as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of the village. Lal Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 211 (P&H).
Rule 45, 45-A – Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 13, 13-A, 19 -- No-confidence motion -- Removal of Sarpanch -- Election of new Sarpanch – Mere passing of a resolution of No Confidence Motion removing the elected Sarpanches and electing new Sarpanches is not sufficient – Status of Sarpanch cannot legally be conferred, unless and until, the entire contemplated procedure under the Act and Rules, is completed, removal of elected Sarpanches is denotified and election of new Sarpanches are duly notified by the Government in the Official Gazette and not otherwise. Baljit Kaur wife of Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 325 (P&H).
Rules, 52, 53 – Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 80,87, 88, 100, 103 – Election petition -- Deficiency in security deposit – 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).
Rules, 52, 53 – Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 81, 103 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order VII, Rule 11(c) – Election petition -- Deficiency in security deposit – 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).
Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad (Sales, lease and other alienation of property and public places Rules), 1964
Rule 3 – Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (24 of 1972), Section 4 -- Unauthorized occupant -- Lease – Expiry of – Extension of – Right of – Lessee was always prepared to pay the additional rents for every year commencing from the date when the petition was filed – Held, if there are rules, which allow for extension of lease beyond the initial period and if the tenant is willing to pay the additional rent as required under the Rules, he cannot be treated as an unauthorized occupant to justify an action for eviction -- Order of eviction made by the authorities under the Public Premises Act cannot be sustained and it is quashed. Krishan Kumar v. Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt. and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 374 (P&H).
Punjab Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2011 (13 of 2011)
Section 1(2), 2 – Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 19 (Omission of Section 19 of the Act) -- Constitution of India, Article 14, 40, 243B, 243C, 243N, 245 -- No-confidence motion against Sarpanch – Omission of provision -- Amendment with retrospective effect – Validity of -- Deleting the provision for No Confidence Motion is not unconstitutional -- Section 1(2) of the Act to bring into force the Amendment Act retrospectively from 1.7.2010 is held to be arbitrary and ultravires the Constitution. Nirbhai Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 217 (P&H DB).
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994)
Section 1, 11,12 – Constitution of India, Article 243 -- Interpretation of statute -- Words of an enactment are to be given their ordinary, popular and natural meaning -- If such meaning is clear and unambiguous, the effect should be given to a provision of a statute in the same manner whatever may be the consequences -- If the language of a statute is clear, the only duty of the Court is to give effect to it and the Court has no business to look into the consequences of such interpretation -- Court is under an obligation to expound the law as it exists and leave the remedy to the legislature, even if harsh conclusions result from such exposition -- Equally, it is now well recognized proposition of law that mandatory provisions and command of law have to be complied with in the same manner as envisaged and mandated by any statute and it cannot be interpreted otherwise. Sukhwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 279 (P&H).
Section 3, 4 – New Gram Sabha area – Creation of -- Residents of separate abadi moved the representation, in which, it was mentioned that their abadi/basti is one and half kilometer away from the main village and as per census of 1991, the population of Basti is about 225 -- No development work has been done in the Basti for the last six or seven years and they are very painful -- They unanimously decided that new Gram Panchayat of Basti be established, so that development work could be made and other difficulty could be avoided – B.D.P.O. duly endorsed the view and the matter was further examined at various levels by the Government -- Having completed all the codal formalities, the new Sabha area was established in accordance with the provisions of the Act – Held, declaration of constituting a new Gram Sabha area as contemplated u/s 3 of the Act is general in character and based on subjective satisfaction of the Government -- Creation of new Gram Sabha is within the legislative competence/domain of the Government and such action cannot be assailed on extraneous grounds in a routine manner, unless the same is constitutionally invalid and illegal or against any statutory provisions of the law. Gulzar Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 308 (P&H).
Section 11, 12 -- Constitution of India, Article 243 -- Reservation of Sarpanch/Panch –Reservation to the posts of Sarpanch and Panches have to be notified as per the rural population ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published – Last preceding census of 2001 is relevant – Reservation on the basis of population of the year 2008 is not only arbitrary but illegal as well. Sukhwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 279 (P&H).
Section 13, 13-A, 19 -- Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, Rule 45, 45-A – No-confidence motion -- Removal of Sarpanch -- Election of new Sarpanch – Mere passing of a resolution of No Confidence Motion removing the elected Sarpanches and electing new Sarpanches is not sufficient – Status of Sarpanch cannot legally be conferred, unless and until, the entire contemplated procedure under the Act and Rules, is completed, removal of elected Sarpanches is denotified and election of new Sarpanches are duly notified by the Government in the Official Gazette and not otherwise. Baljit Kaur wife of Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 325 (P&H).
Section 13, 19, – Panch elected – Notification of -- When no B.C.category candidate was available, then the post of Panch was converted into S.C.category vide order/Notification -- Petitioner was declared elected as a Panch in S.C.category -- Held, official respondents were statutorily duty bound to notify the election of Panch of the petitioner in S.C.category -- Official respondents directed to notify the election of the petitioner as a Panch in S.C. category of the Gram Panchayat within a period of 15 days. Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 613 (P&H).
Section 19 -- No-Confidence motion – Meaning of – No ‘No Confidence Motion’ shall be moved before the expiry of two years from the date of previous meeting wherein `No Confidence Motion’ was lost – Earlier ‘No Confidence Motion’ was not accepted by the B.D.P.O. having observed that two years have not expired from the date of assuming the office of Sarpanch, therefore, meeting was not the legal meeting – Held, if previous meeting is held to be illegal then next meeting can be convened any time on the request of the Panches. Harwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 581 (P&H).
Section 19 -- No-confidence motion against Sarpanch -- Removal of Sarpanch -- Election of new Sarpanch – Omission of Section 19 -- Effect of -- Section 19 of the Act prescribing the removal of Sarpanch by passing resolution of No Confidence Motion, has already been omitted by the State Govt. -- Neither the removal of the Sarpanches was de-notified nor the elections of newly elected Sarpanches were notified, till the omission of Section 19 of the Act by the State Government – Held, earlier elected Sarpanches will be deemed to continue as Sarpanches of Gram Panchayats of their respective villages. Baljit Kaur wife of Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 325 (P&H).
Section 19 -- Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, Rule 45 -- Removal of Sarpanch – No-confidence motion – Effect of -- Section 19 of the Act prescribing the removal of Sarpanch by passing a resolution of 'No Confidence Motion', has already been omitted w.e.f. 14.12.2010 by the State Government -- As the removal of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch has not yet been de-notified, therefore, the mere passing of the alleged Resolution of 'No Confidence Motion', ipso-facto is not sufficient for the removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, unless all other formalities, including the statutory formality of de-notifying the name of Sarpanch in official gazette are complete -- In that eventuality, the petitioner (earlier elected as Sarpanch) will be deemed to continue as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of the village. Malook Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 203 (P&H).
Section 19 -- Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, Rule 45 -- Removal of Sarpanch – No-confidence motion – Effect of -- Section 19 of the Act prescribing the removal of Sarpanch by passing a resolution of No Confidence Motion, has already been omitted w.e.f. 14.12.2010 by the State Government -- Since the removal of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch has not yet been de-notified, so, the mere passing of the alleged resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' ipso-facto is not sufficient for his removal from the post of Sarpanch, unless all the other formalities, including the statutory formality of de-notifying the name of Sarpanch are complete -- In that eventuality, the petitioner (earlier elected as Sarpanch) will be deemed to continue as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of the village. Lal Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 211 (P&H).
Section 19 -- Removal of Sarpanch -- No-confidence motion – Neither private respondents could move the affidavit, nor the BDPO was competent to call a meeting to consider the Resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner, unless a period of two years had elapsed from the date, on which the petitioner has assumed his office of Sarpanch -- Entire proceedings of passing the Resolution against the petitioner are vitiated and are against the statutory provisions of Section 19 of the Act. Malook Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 203 (P&H).
Section 19 -- Removal of Sarpanch – No-confidence motion – Notice – Statutory requirements – Non-fulfilment of -- Effect of -- Impugned notice dated 20.9.2010 to convene a meeting on 23.09.2010 was issued -- Means, no such notice by giving “seven clear days” was given -- Thus, there was a complete violation of the statutory and mandatory provisions of the Act -- Matter is not res-integra and is well settled -- Impugned resolution entirely based on totally illegal notice is not only arbitrary, without jurisdiction, but against the statutory provisions of the Act, as well. Lal Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 211 (P&H).
Section 19 – Removal of Sarpanch -- No-confidence motion – Notice – Non-issuance of – Effect of -- BDPO issued notice dated 20.10.2010 to the Sarpanch and all Panches of the indicated Gram Panchayat, to convene the meeting on 29.10.2010, to consider the 'No Confidence Motion', but no meeting was held on that day -- Meeting was held on 01.11.2010, in which the impugned Resolution was passed against the petitioner -- Admittedly, no notice/intimation was issued to petitioner to participate in the meeting held on 01.11.2010 – 'No Confidence Motion' without issuance of any statutory notice, cannot possibly be termed as a legal Resolution -- Since, no statutory notice of the meeting by giving “seven clear days” was given to the petitioner, so, the impugned resolution passed against petitioner is not only illegal, but against the statutory provisions of the Act as well. Malook Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 203 (P&H).
Section 19 (Omission of Section 19 of the Act) -- Punjab Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2011 (13 of 2011), Section 1(2), 2 – Constitution of India, Article 14, 40, 243B, 243C, 243N, 245 -- No-confidence motion against Sarpanch – Omission of provision -- Amendment with retrospective effect – Validity of -- Deleting the provision for No Confidence Motion is not unconstitutional -- Section 1(2) of the Act to bring into force the Amendment Act retrospectively from 1.7.2010 is held to be arbitrary and ultravires the Constitution. Nirbhai Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 217 (P&H DB).
Section 19(4) -- Constitution of India, Article 226 – Preliminary enquiry -- Suspension of Sarpanch/Panch -- Writ jurisdiction – 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).
Section 20 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Suspension of Sarpanch – Removal of Sarpanch – Writ jurisdiction -- 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).
Section 20 -- Suspension of Sarpanch – Removal of Sarpanch – Aggrieved party – Appeal by complainant – Maintainability of -- Complainant is an aggrieved person -- Appeal filed by complainant was very much maintainable before the appellate authority. Darshan Singh’s case 2006 (1) RCR (Civil) 170 (Full Bench) & Ram Phal’s case 1996 (1) PLR 233 relied. Guddu Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Saunti and other v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 180 (P&H).
Section 20 – Suspension/Removal of Sarpanch -- Preliminary Enquiry -- Exoneration from charges – Regular enquiry – Power of Enquiry officer -- It cannot possibly be saith that once the petitioner was exonerated on the basis of preliminary enquiry by the Appellate Authority, without impleading the complainant as a party, then the Enquiry Officer becomes functus officio and cannot proceed with the regular enquiry --– Enquiry Officer has rightly summoned the petitioner and he has power and jurisdiction to conduct the regular enquiry against her in this context. Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 392 (P&H).
Section 20 – Suspension/Removal of Sarpanch -- Preliminary Enquiry -- Exoneration from charges – Regular enquiry – Scope of -- Taking cognizance of the report of the preliminary enquiry, the Director suspended the Sarpanch, as an interim measure – Sarpanch was reinstated by the Appellate Authority, without impleading the complainant as a party or providing opportunity of being heard to him, on a technical ground, but that ipso facto is not a ground to exonerate, on the basis of preliminary enquiry, unless she is found innocent during the course of regular enquiry in this relevant connection. Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 392 (P&H).
Section 20 – Suspension/Removal of Sarpanch -- Preliminary enquiry – Regular Enquiry – Scope of -- Scope of preliminary enquiry relevant for the purpose of suspension of Sarpanch, is entirely distinct, than that of the regime of regular enquiry, for the purpose of removal of Sarpanch -- At the time of preliminary enquiry, a prima facie case is to be considered for a limited purpose of suspension, while during the course of regular enquiry, the matter has to be examined in detail, after receiving the evidence in support of respective stands of the parties, for the purpose of removal of a Sarpanch -- Authority conducting the regular enquiry possesses a wider jurisdiction, as compared with the officer dealing with the preliminary enquiry -- Preliminary enquiry conducted in a summary manner during the course of limited jurisdiction, cannot oust the larger jurisdiction of a officer conducting the regular enquiry, even if both the enquiries are manned by the same person -- Authority dealing with the regular enquiry has to adopt the appropriate procedure and in the preliminary enquiry, summary procedure is to be followed. Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 392 (P&H).
Section 200 – Appointment of Administrator -- If the Panchayat failed to perform any duty within the time specified, then the DDPO and the Director, as the case may be, have the power and jurisdiction to appoint an Administrator. Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 688 (P&H).
Section 200 – Appointment of Administrator -- Quorum of the Gram Panchayat was not complete -- Panches are not co-operating with Sarpanch -- Sanctioned grants for construction of drains, streets, ponds, circular roads etc., latrines, sports, 12th Finance Commission and Panchayat funds to manage the shamilat land, could not be spent on the development works of the village – Held, development of the village cannot possibly be permitted to be jeopardized or hampered by the petty (village) politics and mentality of the Panches in this relevant direction – DDPO did not have any other alternative/option, but to appoint the Administrator to spend the indicated sanctioned grants on the development of the village. Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 688 (P&H).
Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (15 of 1955)
Section 3, 4, 8 – Cow slaughter -- Ownership or conscious possession of the house where slaughter took place – Requirement of -- 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).
Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (31 of 1973)
Section 4, 5 – Eviction order – Execution of – Limitation for execution – 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).
Section 4, 5 -- Retirement from service – Eviction -- Lease terminated, the petitioner obviously would not have any right to continue or to occupy the premises – Order of eviction legally passed by the competent authority. Sat Pal Verma v. The Panchayat Samiti, Garhshankar & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 45 (P&H).
Section 5 – Unauthorised persons – Eviction of – Res-judicata -- First application was rejected on the ground that the lessees had been making payment of the lease amount, which was duly accepted by the respondents -- After the year 1983, no lease amount has been received by the respondents although an offer to make payment was made by the appellants -- Land owner i.e. the State of Punjab expressed its intention to start cultivation on its own -- Second petition, thus, is not barred by the principle of res-judicata as it is a distinct and different cause of action. Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab etc., 2011(3) L.A.R. 251 (P&H DB).
Section 5 – Unauthorised persons – Mesne Profit -- A person, who is in wrongful possession, should not only be removed from that place as early as possible but be compelled also to pay for wrongful possession of that premises by imposing fine, penalty and costs and any leniency would seriously affect the credibility of the judicial system -- No litigant can derive and can claim benefit from the mere pendency of a case in a Court of law and the institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a party by the delayed action of Courts. Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab etc., 2011(3) L.A.R. 251 (P&H DB).
Section 5 – Unauthorized occupant – Eviction of tenant – Intention to pay rent -- A mere intention to pay the rent cannot create a document of lease or obtain a status of lessee entitling to continue in possession -- In the absence of any document, all that could be stated is that the petitioner continued as a tenant from month to month -- Moment the Municipal Committee decides to take an action for eviction, the action cannot be defeated by an intention to obtain a lease in future -- Order of eviction cannot be interfered. Ram Chander v. State of Haryana through Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 357 (P&H).
Section 5, 7 – Unauthorized occupant – Eviction of tenant – Mesne profit -- So long as the case does not involve the issue of title and the ownership in Panchayat is admitted, the action for ejectment cannot be questioned unless the tenant has obtained a subsistence of right to continue in possession and shows that he has been paying the rent to term himself as being not in unauthorized occupation – Admittedly no rent had ever been paid during all the time when the proceedings were initiated and when the case was pending -- Order of ejectment passed under such circumstances would be perfectly justified -- Panchayat shall be at liberty to apply to the authority for determination of the mesne profits during the pendency of the proceedings in accordance with law. Ram Narain v. The Commissioner, Ferozepore Division, Ferozepore, and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 351 (P&H).
Section 10, 15 – Finality of order – Jurisdiction of civil court – Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit to set aside the order passed by the Collector or Commissioner under the said Act. Kamla Wati and others v. The Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, Government of India, New Delhi and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 126 (P&H).
Section 10, 15 – Finality of order – Jurisdiction of civil court – It was only the Deputy Commissioner, who was having a right to grant temporary lease qua the open site – Lessee has no right to induct other as tenant on the said wooden khokha and hence Government was having right to resume the site in dispute – Order in this regard has already been passed by the Collector, which was upheld in appeal by the Commissioner and hence, the orders have become final -- Said orders could not be quashed by the civil Court. Kamla Wati and others v. The Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, Government of India, New Delhi and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 126 (P&H).
Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 (31 of 1966)
Section 67(1), 72(1) -- Interpretation of Statute -- Legislature has chosen exactly the same phraseology in Sections 67(1) and 72(1) of the 1966 Act -- One of the cardinal principle of interpretation of Statutes is that a word which occurs more than once in the same Act should be given the same meaning throughout the Act, unless the context shows that the Legislature has used the word in a different sense -- Since no different legislative intent is foreseeable or can be inferred from the plain reading of the provisions of Part-VII, we hold that the nature and extent of directions that may be issued by the Central Government under sub-Section (1) of Section 72 shall be similar to those which it can issue under Section 67(1) in respect of the State Electricity Board or the State Warehousing Corporation, namely, for continuation of their function in those areas in respect of which they were functioning immediately before the appointed day. Sehajdhari Sikh Federation v. Union of India & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 409 (P&H Full Bench).
Section 70, 72, 86 -- Interpretation of Statute – Usage of words “Modification” and “Amendment” -- Court shall always proceed on the premise that the Legislature has inserted every expression for a purpose and the legislative intention is that none of the provisions of the Statute is found redundant -- If the Parliament’s intention while using the phrase ‘modification’ were to confer the power of ‘amendment’ it would have inserted the latter phrase in Section 72 to avoid any ambiguity -- Word ‘modification’ in Section 72, therefore, cannot be construed analogous to the word ‘amendment’ which finds mention in Sections 70 & 86 of the 1966 Act. Sehajdhari Sikh Federation v. Union of India & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 409 (P&H Full Bench).
Section 72 – Constitution of India, Article 245 -- Delegated legislation – Nature of -- Law summarized -- a. essential legislative function comprising determination of the legislative policy and its formulation as a binding rule of conduct must be retained by the Legislature itself -- b. the Legislature may entrust ancillary and subordinate legislative powers to an authority but such entrustment cannot be unbridled or absolute -- c. the essential legislative policy and the guidelines to be kept in view by the delegate must be laid down by the Legislature itself -- d. the Parliament or State Legislature cannot abdicate their legislative functions to the delegate -- e. the excessive, uncontrolled or unguided delegation of powers is abhorrent to the theory of separation of powers under our Constitution as the Legislature can neither create a parallel Legislature nor destroy its Legislative power. Sehajdhari Sikh Federation v. Union of India & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 409 (P&H Full Bench).
Section 72 – Constitution of India, Article 245 -- Delegated legislation – 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).
Section 72 -- Constitution of India, Article 3,4,246 – Constitutional provisions in relation to the enactment of a Re-organization law and other allied issues are summarized as :-- a. the Parliament has got plenary legislative power to alter the boundaries of any State, to diminish its area and also the power to admit, establish or form new States -- b. the law-making power under Articles 3&4 is paramount and is not subjected to nor fettered by Article 246 or the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution -- c. the re-organization law enacted under Articles 2, 3 & 4 of the Constitution may alter or amend the First and the Fourth Schedules which set out the names of the States, description of their territories and allocation of seats in the Parliament etc. -- d. the Re-organization law may also have supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions to establish Legislative, Executive and Judicial organs of the State, expenditure and distribution of revenue, apportionment of assets and liabilities etc. etc.; -- the newly-formed State under a Re-organization law must conform to the democratic pattern ingrained in the Constitution -- f. the Parliamentary power to admit, establish or form a State is not meant to override the Constitutional scheme, hence no State can be formed or admitted by law which has no Legislative, Executive and Judicial organs -- g. the Constitutional validity of law made under Articles 3&4 though cannot be questioned on the ground of lack of legislative competence yet can be assailed if it violates the Constitutional provisions -- h. a re-organization law though effectuates alterations in First and Fourth Schedules of the Constitution but such changes do not amount to ‘amendment’ of the Constitution within the meaning of Article 368 nor such a law can be equated with the Constitution -- i. a re-organization law is perpetually operative and is not a ‘temporary Act’ and powers thereunder may be exercised any time save as it is abated by express or implied repeal. Sehajdhari Sikh Federation v. Union of India & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 409 (P&H Full Bench).
Section 72 -- Constitution of India, Article 368 – Delegated legislation -- 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).
Section 72 -- Constitution of India, Article 368 – Delegated legislation -- 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).
Section 72 -- Constitution of India, Article, 3, 4, 245, 246, 248, 368 – What is the nature and scope of supplemental, incidental and consequential powers exerciseable by the Parliament under Article 4(1) of the Constitution wherever deemed necessary? – Held, supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions contained in a re-organization law within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Constitution include the provisions for admission, establishment or formation of a State conforming to the democratic pattern conceived by our Constitution, however, the Parliamentary power to incorporate such provisions does not include the power to override the Constitutional scheme and framework. Sehajdhari Sikh Federation v. Union of India & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 409 (P&H Full Bench).
Section 72 -- Constitution of India, Article, 3,4, 245, 246, 248, 368 – Does the Constitution assign any superior or special status to a law enacted by Parliament under Articles 3 & 4 as compared to those legislated under Articles 245 and 246? – Held, the Parliamentary power to enact a re-organization law under Articles 3&4 is plenary and unfettered by Article 246 of the Constitution -- The law enacted under Articles 3 & 4 of the Constitution is assigned a special status to the extent that it is immune from challenge on the ground of legislative competence though like any other legislation, such a law is also assailable if it violates other provisions of the Constitution -- On the other hand, the laws enacted by Parliament under Articles 245, 246 or 248 etc. of the Constitution can be put to judicial scrutiny on both counts. Sehajdhari Sikh Federation v. Union of India & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 409 (P&H Full Bench).
Section 72 -- Constitution of India, Article, 3,4, 245, 246, 248, 368 – Whether the Re-organization Act or an act of a delegate thereunder is deemed to be an integral part of the Constitution and not justiciable except on the ground of violation of the basic structure of the Constitution? – Held, a re-organization law is also justiciable, if challenged on the plea that it abrogates the Constitution. Sehajdhari Sikh Federation v. Union of India & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 409 (P&H Full Bench).
Section 72 -- Constitution of India, Article, 3,4, 245, 246, 248, 368 – Delegated legislation – Scope of – 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).
Section 72 -- Constitution of India, Article, 3,4, 245, 246, 248, 368 – Delegated legislation – Scope of -- 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).
Section 72 -- Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (8 of 1925), Section 45, 49, 92 -- Constitution of India, Article, 3,4, 245, 246, 248, 368 – Delegated legislation – Scope of – 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).
Section 72 -- Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (8 of 1925), Section 45, 49, 92 -- Constitution of India, Article 368 – Sehajdhari Sikhs -- Right to vote – Delegated legislation – Power of -- 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).
Section 72 -- Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (8 of 1925), Section 45, 49, 92 -- Constitution of India, Article, 3,4, 245, 246, 248, 368 – Delegated legislation – Scope of – 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).
Section 72 -- Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (8 of 1925), Section 45, 49, 92 -- Constitution of India, Article, 368 – Delegated legislation – Scope of – 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).
Section 72 – Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (8 of 1925), Section 47-A -- Insertion of section 47-A by notification – Effect of -- Notification dated 3.2.1973, adding Section 47-A in the Act, affected none nor was it challenged for lack of competence -- Creation of an independent Election Tribunal for conducting fair and free election after the Board had become an inter-State body corporate was very much essential for its effective functioning including electing the Committees for managing the affairs of ‘Sikh Gurdwaras’ located within the territories of successor States -- Said provision in no way affects the legislative policy of the Act and in fact strengthens the same by ensuring a fair and free transition of the management of ‘Sikh Gurdwaras’ at the hands of the elected bodies -- Section 47-A in fact supplements the power already entrusted to the Central Government to hold elections under the Act as can be inferred from Section 47 of the Act -- Section 47-A merely transposes the Election Tribunal in place of the Central Government for holding a free and fair election under the Act -- Creation of an Election Tribunal re-states the legislative policy of the Act to entrust the management of ‘Sikh Gurdwaras’ to a democratically-elected body only representing the will of the people -- Essential legislative features of the 1925 Act have not been thus impaired by these Notifications -- Some of the amendments made by the Legislature in the 1925 Act in pre or post Constitutional era have also not, directly or indirectly, fiddled with its above-mentioned principal legislative policy. Sehajdhari Sikh Federation v. Union of India & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 409 (P&H Full Bench).
Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (41 of 1963)
Section 4 – Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (24 of 1973), Section 203C -- Controlled area – Land within municipal limits -- Contention that, Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/s Shiva Ice Factory’s case, in CWP No. 8011 of 1999 decided on 12.12.2007 held that the notification under the provisions of the 1963 Act is not applicable to an area which is included in the municipal limits – Held, though, the Full Bench judgment supports the arguments raised but the fact remains that the Full Bench was not apprised of the amendments in the statute carried out by the Haryana Act No.1 of 2001, whereby Section 203 C of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 has been inserted – In view of the aforesaid statutory provision incorporated, reliance placed upon a Full Bench judgment, is not tenable. Smt. Poonam v. The District Town Planner, Karnal, 2011(3) L.A.R. 385 (P&H).
Section 4 – Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (16 of 1994), Section 2(4), 346 -- Controlled area – Land within Municipal limits -- Notice for demolition of construction – Competent authority -- Contention that since, the land in dispute is the part of the Municipal Corporation, it is only the Commissioner, as defined under Section 2(4) of the 1994 Act, who is competent to issue notice for demolition of the construction -- Held, section 346 of 1994 Act starts with non obstante Clause, section gives over riding effect to the plans prepared under 1963 Act -- In terms of the Section 346 of the 1994 Act, the declaration of the controlled area under 1963 Act is valid, if controlled area is not declared under the 1994 Act -- Since, the controlled area has been declared under the 1963 Act, therefore, the Town and Country Planner under the aforesaid Act is competent to issue notice to the petitioner for demolition. Smt. Poonam v. The District Town Planner, Karnal, 2011(3) L.A.R. 385 (P&H).
Section 4 – Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (16 of 1994), Section 346 -- Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (24 of 1973), Section 203C -- Controlled area – Land within Municipal limits -- Notice for demolition of construction – Municipal Committee has the power to prohibit the construction of the buildings in a particular area -- The Municipal Act is general statute dealing with the administration of municipalities and maintenance and protection of streets or buildings which prohibits the construction of the buildings in a particular area -- However, the 1963 Act, is a special statute regulating and controlling the development of haphazard growth and slums in and around the Scheduled roads and around the urban areas, which has been declared as controlled area -- Even in the municipal limits, there exist schedule roads -- To say, that Municipal Act will override the Special Statute is not correct -- Both the Statutes enacted by State Legislature are required to be construed harmoniously even if they touch the same subject at the same time, though, they do not -- The special Act will prevail over the General Statute -- The said aspect has been clarified with the insertion of Section 203 C of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 and Section 346 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 -- Thus, the challenge to the demolition of the construction in violation of the controlled area plan is wholly misconceived. Smt. Poonam v. The District Town Planner, Karnal, 2011(3) L.A.R. 385 (P&H).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953)
Section 2(2) – Small landowner -- Landowner whose entire land in the State does not exceed the permissible area shall be small land-owner -- Merely because small land-owner is not residing in the village and for his livelihood has started living in the city, does not loose the character of the small land-owner. Surjan v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 86 (P&H).
Section 2(3), 18 -- Haryana Utilization of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1972 -- Landlord’s permissible area – 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).
Section 2(3), 5-B – Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 4,9 -- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), 42 -- 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).
Section 2(3), 9 – Landlord’s permissible area – 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).
Section 2(3A), 2(5a), 5-B, 18 – Landlord’s permissible area – Tenant’s permissible area – Surplus area – 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).
Section 2(3A), 2(5a), 5-B, 18 – Landlord’s permissible area – 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).
Section 2(3A), 2(5a), 5-B, 18 – Landlord’s permissible area – 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).
Section 2(5-a) -- Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, Form-F Rule 6 -- Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972),3(r), 4 -- Surplus land – Declaration of – Procedure to be followed -- Declaration of land surplus in 1960 – Challenged in the year, 1986 and to the petitioners' avail is a justification that the State never informed or communicated the order of declaration of surplus in form-F Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules – Held, petitioners' case requires favourable consideration only by the fact that a declaration of surplus cannot be operative on its own unless the procedure as prescribed under law is followed and the landowner has been allowed to participate in the proceedings before the decision is taken -- Impugned order is set aside -- State shall be at liberty to take appropriate action for determination of surplus in the light of provisions of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. Achhpal Singh alias Sunda and others v. The State of Haryana, through the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department, Chandigarh, and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 610 (P&H).
Section 2(5-a) -- Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 12(3) – Surplus land – Restoration of -- Inaction on the part of the Government to resettle tenants would not clothe the owner with the power of restoration of land -- Right on the land declared as surplus gets vested in the Government to be distributed amongst the tenants for resettlement -- This is an indefeasible right that the Government secures and the land owners do not get this land back, if the surplus has not been utilized. Fakiria & others v. The State of Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 583 (P&H).
Section 2(5a) – Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (10 of 1973), Section 6,8,9 – Surplus area – Non-utilization of – Right of purchaser – Necessary Party -- Punjab Land Reforms Act came into force -- If a property is unutilized and it had not taken possession by the Government, the re-determination would require to be done under the Land Reforms Act, 1972 -- If on that date the property is in the hands of purchaser who has purchased the property even before the appointed date namely on 24.1.1971, then he shall be a person affected and further proceedings cannot go without joining such a purchaser -- Purchasers themselves are statutorily protected -- Objections of such purchasers have to be heard before declaration of surplus. Kulip Singh and another v. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 679 (P&H).
Section 2(5-a) -- Surplus land – Surplus land, which stand allotted, if put to challenge, then allottee is a necessary party and the order passed without impleading them would not be proper. Fakiria & others v. The State of Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 583 (P&H).
Section 2(5-a) -- Surplus land proceedings – Pendency of – Landowner died – 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).
Section 2(9) -- Self cultivation -- Self-cultivation means cultivation by a land-owner either personally or through his wife or children or through his relative or under his supervision -- If land-owner intends to cultivate the land under his supervision by his employees, it would amount to self cultivation. Surjan v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 86 (P&H).
Section 3,5 – Reservation of land -- Contention that landlord could not have made a reservation of the property, which is held by the tenant – Held, all that is necessary u/s 5 is that property reserved by the land owner must be a property, which is owned by him, it does not cast any restriction that he cannot make a reservation in respect of the property held by a tenant. Ram Devi (through LRs) and another v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 667 (P&H).
Section 9 -- Eviction of tenant -- Land-owner should be a small landowner to evict the tenant – There is no need to prove that he himself intends to cultivate -- If land-owner intends to cultivate the land under his supervision by his employees, it would amount to self cultivation -- Merely because small land-owner is not residing in the village and for his livelihood has started living in the city, does not loose the character of the small land-owner – Eviction order upheld. Surjan v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 86 (P&H).
Section 9, 11,12 – Tenant – Rent – Increase of – Right of -- Tenant has been cultivating the suit land at fixed lagan/very old rate of Rs.60 per annum -- Assistant Collector Ist Grade was well within his jurisdiction to direct the tenant, to execute the Qabuliatnama/Pattanama and to pay the rent in respect of the land in dispute, not exceeding 1/3rd of the crop of such land or the value thereof, as determined in the prescribed manner. Dalel Singh v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 321 (P&H).
Section 10-A – Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 82 – Surplus area – Declaration of – Re-open of – Will -- Review – Power of -- Financial Commissioner allowed the review and set aside the order of his predecessor by saying that his predecessor did not take into consideration the provisions of Section 10-A(b) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, that do not entitle a beneficiary under a Will that comes into effect after the declaration of surplus area to pray for reopening of surplus area proceedings that have attained finality – Held, disposition of property by way of a Will, can not be equated with devolution of interest by inheritance conferring a right upon a legatee to urge that surplus area proceedings be reopened on the basis of a Will that comes into effect after the declaration of surplus area -- Financial Commissioner, therefore, rightly accepted the petition for review and set aside orders that were patently erroneous and without jurisdiction. Rajinder Kaur and others v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 398 (P&H).
Section 10-A – Surplus area – Declaration of – Re-open of – Whether the petitioners can claim reopening of surplus area proceedings, on the ground that the big landowner passed away before utilization i.e. before possession could be taken -- Petitioners are not the natural heirs, daughter died issueless and her husband remarried -- Petitioners are children from the second marriage and, therefore, cannot claim inheritance to the estate. Rajinder Kaur and others v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 398 (P&H).
Section 10-A – Surplus area – Declaration of – Re-open of – 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).
Section 18 – Purchase of land – Necessary parties -- An order of purchase u/s 18 of the Punjab Act ordinarily binds the parties only and, the State, which is seriously prejudiced by that order but not being a party to it, therefore, cannot bind the State to proprio vigore -- State being not a party to the proceedings, thus, cannot be bound by it whatever may be the affect of it between the parties to these proceedings. Fakiria & others v. The State of Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 583 (P&H).
Section 18 Surplus land – Tenant’s permissible area – Purchase of land -- Right of -- Right or entitlement of the petitioners to purchase land u/s 18 of the Punjab Act could have been invoked only if such land was declared as tenant permissible area -- Land was declared surplus and purchase thereof was allowed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners u/s 18 of the Punjab Act, this was not permissible -- If such a mode is left open, it would nullify the entire spirit behind the agrarian reform, it would be then open for any big land owner to sell his land which is declared surplus to any person by showing him tenant and Government would thus, be deprived of right to use this land for allotment and settling tenants. Fakiria & others v. The State of Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 583 (P&H).
Section 24-A -- Proceedings u/s 24-A under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 are attracted in case where the rights of co-owners are contested. 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 Rules, 1956
Form-F Rule 6 -- Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), 2(5-a) -- Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972),3(r), 4 -- Surplus land – Declaration of – Procedure to be followed -- Declaration of land surplus in 1960 – Challenged in the year, 1986 and to the petitioners' avail is a justification that the State never informed or communicated the order of declaration of surplus in form-F Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules – Held, petitioners' case requires favourable consideration only by the fact that a declaration of surplus cannot be operative on its own unless the procedure as prescribed under law is followed and the landowner has been allowed to participate in the proceedings before the decision is taken -- Impugned order is set aside -- State shall be at liberty to take appropriate action for determination of surplus in the light of provisions of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. Achhpal Singh alias Sunda and others v. The State of Haryana, through the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department, Chandigarh, and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 610 (P&H).
Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994)
Section 77, 100 – Appeal -- Necessary parties – Non-impleading of -- Appellants having not impleaded all the contesting candidates as respondents in the election petition, the same is liable to be rejected – Once the election petition filed by the appellants itself is not maintainable, the case should not be remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration of the issue as the same would result in wastage of precious time and energy of the Tribunal. Smt. Bhajan Kaur and another v. Gurmej Kaur and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 162 (P&H).
Section 77, 100 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order XLI Rule 33 – Appeal – Question of facts – Jurisdiction of -- Section 100 of the Act provides that the appeal to High court against the order passed by the Tribunal shall be on law as well as on facts -- Appeal is continuation of proceedings, where the question of fact can also be gone into by the Appellate Court -- Order XLI Rule 33 CPC clearly provides that the Appellate Court can deal with the issues which may not have been raised in the appeal filed by the appellant and can grant relief even to the respondents or other party who may not have filed appeal. Smt. Bhajan Kaur and another v. Gurmej Kaur and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 162 (P&H).
Section 80,87, 88, 100, 103 – Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, Rules, 52, 53 – Election petition -- Deficiency in security deposit – 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).
Section 81, 103 – Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, Rules, 52, 53 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order VII, Rule 11(c) – Election petition -- Deficiency in security deposit – 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).
Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887)
Section 42,44 – Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (13 of 1955), Section 7 -- Arrears of rent – Ejectment -- Section 7 of Pepsu Tenancy Act, must be read as providing to a tenant an additional period of what the Punjab Tenancy Act provides – It will be wrong to assume that a landlord could decide to exclude the provisions of Pepsu Tenancy Law by applying under the Punjab Tenancy Act – The application of Acts cannot be made to be dependent on the personal whims of a landlord. Joginder Singh and others v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 676 (P&H).
Section 44 – Eviction of tenant – Recovery of Rent – Right of -- Contention that the petitioner has been evicted and the relationship of the tenant and the landlord had ceased, the authorities have, therefore, not the competency to entertain and dispose of the landlord's claim under the Punjab Tenancy Act – Held, so long as the jural relationship of landlord and tenant is an admitted fact and the claim to rent is for the period when such relationship is existed, the jurisdiction of the authority cannot be lost by the supervening event of the tenant being evicted by an order through the authority constituted under the Act. Nand Ram v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 396 (P&H).
Section 82 – Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 10-A – Surplus area – Declaration of – Re-open of – Will -- Review – Power of -- Financial Commissioner allowed the review and set aside the order of his predecessor by saying that his predecessor did not take into consideration the provisions of Section 10-A(b) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, that do not entitle a beneficiary under a Will that comes into effect after the declaration of surplus area to pray for reopening of surplus area proceedings that have attained finality – Held, disposition of property by way of a Will, can not be equated with devolution of interest by inheritance conferring a right upon a legatee to urge that surplus area proceedings be reopened on the basis of a Will that comes into effect after the declaration of surplus area -- Financial Commissioner, therefore, rightly accepted the petition for review and set aside orders that were patently erroneous and without jurisdiction. Rajinder Kaur and others v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 398 (P&H).
Section 82 – Review – Power of -- Section 82 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, does not define the limits of the power of review and must, therefore, be understood to confer a power to rectify any error apparent on the face of record -- An error of jurisdiction based upon a perverse interpretation of statutory provisions that has the affect of diminishing surplus area, if brought to the notice of the Financial Commissioner, can be corrected in the exercise of the power of review -- Power of review, though limited in its scope and ambit can be exercised to undo perverse and arbitrary orders. Rajinder Kaur and others v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 398 (P&H).
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961)
Section 2(g)-- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 10 – Shamilat deh – Land reserved for school – 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 -- If the Panchayat, therefore, decides to grant a right of user to the classes of persons approved through the Rules then the fact that it was originally reserved for school will not detract from the power of the Panchayat to make way for such a change of user. Kapur Singh and others v. Collector-cum-District Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 382 (P&H).
Section 2(g)(ii)(a) (as inserted by Punjab Act No.8 of 1995) – Shamlat deh -- Allotment of land – Allotment in favour of the vendors of the petitioners was made prior to 09.07.1985 -- Such allotment is protected by virtue of amendment inserted vide Punjab Act No.8 of 1995 -- However, the question whether the allotment is actuated by fraud or misrepresentation, it shall be open to the Panchayat or such other competent authority to take such remedy as is permissible on any legally permissible grounds, but till such time the allotments are set aside, it cannot be said that the sales in favour of the petitioners are not protected by the aforesaid Act. Amarjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 40 (P&H DB).
Section 2(g)(ii)(a) (as inserted by Punjab Act No.8 of 1995) – Shamlat deh -- Allotment of land – Sales effected prior to the judgment in Malwinder Singh’s case, AIR 1985 SC 1394 have been protected by virtue of amendment inserted vide Punjab Act No.8 of 1995 -- Since the vendors of the petitioners have been allotted land prior to 09.07.1985 i.e. the date of judgment in Malwinder Singh’s case, therefore, the petitioners being vendee of vendors, whose allotment is protected, are entitled to the possession of the land so purchased. Amarjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 40 (P&H DB).
Section 7 – Eviction petition – Res-judicata -- In earlier petition, Gram Panchayat failed to produce any evidence for a sufficient long time, neither the Gram Panchayat nor any counsel appeared and the case was dismissed for non-prosecution – Held, no adjudication on the issue and findings of facts have not been returned – Earlier order would not operate as resjudicata -- It would not estop the Gram Panchayat from filing the second application -- Decision taken in earlier petition cannot be said to be conclusively deciding the issue. Balwinder & others v. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 60 (P&H).
Section 7 – Gair Mumkin Goradeh – Common purpose – Unauthorised occupation – Eviction of -- As per revenue record, the land vests in the Gram Panchayat and is being used as Gair Mumkin Goradeh, which admittedly is a common purpose -- Eviction was passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, on the basis of the demarcation report, which was upheld in appeal as well as in revision -- During pendency of the appeal, the disputed land was again demarcated and in the said demarcation also, the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of land – Finding of facts recorded by both the courts below on the basis of two demarcation reports -- No ground to interfere. Bahadur Singh v. The Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 606 (P&H DB).
Section 7 – Unauthorized occupation – Compensation – Eviction -- Appellant is not a Khewatdar in the village and not contributed even a single inch of land towards Shamlat deh land and Jumla Mushtarka Malkaan land -- Appellant had taken the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat, when failed to vacate, he has become unauthorized occupant – Appellant is not entitled to get any relief from the Court – Gram Panchayat has not initiated any action against the appellant to realize an amount towards use and occupation of the land, the Gram Panchayat directed to move an application immediately and realize the charges from the appellant towards unauthorized occupation of the land for more than four decades. Nathu Ram v. Joint Development Commissioner and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 82 (P&H DB).
Section 7 (For Haryana) -- Custodian property -- Ejectment order – Non-speaking order – Duty of Authorities -- 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).
Section 7 (For Haryana) -- Ejectment petition – Question of title raised – Effect of -- 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).
Section 7 (For Haryana) -- Ejectment petition – Question of title raised – Effect of -- Command of the legislature is mandatory -- 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).
Section 7 (For Haryana) -- Ejectment petition – Question of title raised – Effect of -- 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).
Section 7 (For Haryana) -- Ejectment petition – Question of title raised – Effect of -- 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).
Section 7, 11 – Eviction of tenant – Title dispute – Resjudicata – Plea of – Maintainability of -- Whether the order passed in proceeding u/s 7 of the Act will operate as res judicata or as an estoppel in proceeding u/s 11 of the Act, is not res-integra – Section 7 of the Act is a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction and therefore, cannot enter into the enquiry as to whether the land is shamlat or not -- Question of title decided by the Assistant Collector is prima facie and does not assume finality – U/s 7 the Collector is empowered to pass an order to put Panchayat in possession of the land which vests and is deemed to have been vested in, such provision pre-supposes the title of the Panchayat over the said property -- Jurisdiction of the Collector u/s 7 of the Act is analogous to the execution proceedings -- Disputed question of title over any land claimed to be shamlat or otherwise, is required to be adjudicated upon u/s 11 of the Act -- While providing alternative mode of adjudication of question of title of the land as shamlat or not, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was specifically barred – Held, in proceedings u/s 11 of the Act, the question of title is adjudicated upon in substitution of the proceedings before the Civil Court and the order passed in such proceeding alone is final and binding on the parties. Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 195 (P&H).
Section 7, 13-A, 13-AA, 13-B (For Haryana) -- Ejectment petition – Question of title – Second Revision – Maintainability of -- In a suit u/s 13-A of the Act, Collector is the prescribed authority -- Appeal and revision in context of an order passed by the prescribed authority viz. Collector u/s 13-A has been provided under Section 13AA of the Act -- Appeal and revision against orders passed u/s 7 have been provided u/s 13-B of the Act -- Proceedings were initiated u/s 7 of the Act – Second revision before the Financial Commissioner is not maintainable. Gram Panchayat Village Bajghera v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 329 (P&H).
Section 7, 13-A, 13-B (For Haryana) -- Question of title – 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).
Section 7, 13-B – Penalty – Appeal – Condition for deposit of penalty – Interpretation of -- No provision as to what is to happen to the amount so deposited for entertaining the appeal, if ultimately appellant succeeds -- Section not only bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court but has given finality to the order passed and the same can not be questioned in any manner in any Civil Court -- In order to save the validity of this proviso, it may have to be read down for which there are precedents -- To avoid injustice and unnecessary expense, the proviso to the Section may have to be read down to include the right to waive the condition by the appellate Judge in an appropriate case. Ranjit Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 48 (P&H).
Section 7, 13-B (For Haryana) -- Ejectment petition – Question of title – Second Revision before Financial Commissioner – Maintainability of -- Remedy of revision already availed before the Commissioner -- 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).
Section 10-A -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 5 – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 42 – Shamlat land -- Exchange of land – Power of Director – Director Consolidation Haryana allowed the exchange, de hors the powers vested in Director Consolidation u/s 42 of the Consolidation Act – Property falling in shamlat deh can only be exchanged if the provisions of 1961 Act and the Rules are complied with not only in letter but also in their spirit -- None of the conditions provided under Rule 5 of the Rules has been followed, rather, under a Statute which is alien to the issue, exchange of Gram Panchayat land has been allowed -- Held, exchange of land of Gram Panchayat allowed by Director Consolidation, is clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and for reasons de hors the law that governs such issues -- Order is also fanciful, injudicious, irresponsible and unaccountable. Maherdin & others v. Smt. Medha & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 119 (P&H).
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964
Rule 5 – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 42 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 10-A -- Shamlat land -- Exchange of land – Power of Director – Director Consolidation Haryana allowed the exchange, de hors the powers vested in Director Consolidation u/s 42 of the Consolidation Act – Property falling in shamlat deh can only be exchanged if the provisions of 1961 Act and the Rules are complied with not only in letter but also in their spirit -- None of the conditions provided under Rule 5 of the Rules has been followed, rather, under a Statute which is alien to the issue, exchange of Gram Panchayat land has been allowed -- Held, exchange of land of Gram Panchayat allowed by Director Consolidation, is clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and for reasons de hors the law that governs such issues -- Order is also fanciful, injudicious, irresponsible and unaccountable. Maherdin & others v. Smt. Medha & others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 119 (P&H).
Rule 10 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) -- Shamilat deh – Land reserved for school – 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 -- If the Panchayat, therefore, decides to grant a right of user to the classes of persons approved through the Rules then the fact that it was originally reserved for school will not detract from the power of the Panchayat to make way for such a change of user. Kapur Singh and others v. Collector-cum-District Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 382 (P&H).
Rule 10, 13-A – Shamilat deh – Land allotted to land-less labourers -- Rule 13-A prescribes a procedure of previous approval of the Government by an amendment dated 07.10.1976 -- Resolution has been passed on 28.05.1973, land was allotted and the mutation entries in the names of allottees are from the year 1974 itself – Held, it cannot be stated that Rule 13-A applied to the case of allottees. Kapur Singh and others v. Collector-cum-District Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 382 (P&H).
Purchase of land
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 -- Necessary parties -- An order of purchase u/s 18 of the Punjab Act ordinarily binds the parties only and, the State, which is seriously prejudiced by that order but not being a party to it, therefore, cannot bind the State to proprio vigore -- State being not a party to the proceedings, thus, cannot be bound by it whatever may be the affect of it between the parties to these proceedings. Fakiria & others v. The State of Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 583 (P&H).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Surplus land – Tenant’s permissible area – Right or entitlement of the petitioners to purchase land u/s 18 of the Punjab Act could have been invoked only if such land was declared as tenant permissible area -- Land was declared surplus and purchase thereof was allowed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners u/s 18 of the Punjab Act, this was not permissible -- If such a mode is left open, it would nullify the entire spirit behind the agrarian reform, it would be then open for any big land owner to sell his land which is declared surplus to any person by showing him tenant and Government would thus, be deprived of right to use this land for allotment and settling tenants. Fakiria & others v. The State of Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 583 (P&H).
No comments:
Post a Comment