Nazool Land Transfer Rules of 1956
Rule 3, 9-A – Allotment of plot –Cancellation of – Non-payment of instalments -- Civil suit -- No proof that the property had been even specifically allotted in favour of the plaintiffs -- Transfer itself has not been completed by a certificate of transfer -- A mere allotment does not grant a right to the property itself -- It merely is the first stage of obtaining a right -- If it does not fructify into a transfer deed in the manner provided, then no vested right can ever obtain -- Plaintiffs, who had taken notice of the cancellation could not have merely treated the proceedings as void without resorting to the procedure prescribed under the Act -- Plaintiffs' action for injunction cannot lie and more so, when the plaintiffs have not been able to show their possession continuously in pursuance of their allotment. Joginder Singh and others v. Punjab State through District Collector, Sangrur and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 370 (P&H).
Necessary parties
Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 -- Surplus area – Non-utilization of – Right of purchaser – 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 Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 -- Purchase of land – 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 State Election Commission Act, 1994 -- Non-impleading of -- Appellants having not impleaded all the contesting candidates as respondents in the election petition, the same is liable to be rejected. Smt. Bhajan Kaur and another v. Gurmej Kaur and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 162 (P&H).
Need for son
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act -- Bonafide need –Pleadings – 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).
Rent Laws – Need for son -- Death of Landlord -- Landlord had already taken a plea in the eviction petition and categorically stated on oath in his affidavit that that he wanted to settle his son -- All the requirements of law were complied with by landlord even before his death and rest has been complied by his widow who had stated in her examination that they do not possess any other commercial building in Chandigarh nor had vacated – Held, matter not requires a remand for the legal heirs of landlord to set up their own case. Vishal Garg v. Kanwaljit Kaur and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 92 (P&H).
Rent Laws -- Non-residential premises – Requirement of non-residential premises by the landlord would also include the requirement of the said premises by his son. Gurbaj Singh v. Parshotam Singh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 294 (P&H).
New Gram Sabha area
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 -- 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 – 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).
No-Confidence motion
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 -- 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).
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 -- 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).
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – 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 – Omission of provision -- No-confidence motion against Sarpanch – 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 -- Removal of Sarpanch -- 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).
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 -- Removal of Sarpanch -- 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).
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Removal of Sarpanch – 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).
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Removal of Sarpanch – 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).
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Removal of Sarpanch – 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).
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – 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).
Non-challenging to Mode of partition
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.).
Non-fulfilment of Statutory requirements
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Removal of Sarpanch – No-confidence motion – Notice – 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).
Non-impleading of Necessary parties
Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 – Appeal – 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).
Non-occupation by landlord
Rent Laws -- Bonafide need – Eviction of tenant – Safeguard is provided by the legislature, if landlord or his family for whose benefit eviction was obtained, fails to occupy the premises for a continuous period of 12 months from the date of obtaining possession or where he puts that building to any use or lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order and direction that he shall be restored to possession of such building. Balbir Kaur and others v. Roop Lal and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 101 (P&H).
Non-residential building / Premises
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act -- Bonafide need – Need for son -- Pleadings – 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).
Rent Laws -- Building – If some portion of a residential building, which is converted into a shop and is let out for non-residential purposes, is having no access from its backside or any side to the main residential building and has only one opening towards the main market, then it would essentially be a building used for a non-residential purpose in the residential building and would be a separate unit/building for the purpose of the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant for non-residential purpose and not for residential purpose. S. Narinder Singh and another v. Manohar Singh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 188 (P&H).
Rent Laws -- Building – If the building is essentially constructed pursuant to a plan sanctioned by a Competent Authority as a residential building and the shop carved out is not constructed on the basis of a sanctioned plan, then the very nature of the building would remain residential. S. Narinder Singh and another v. Manohar Singh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 188 (P&H).
Rent Laws -- Building – Residential building – If there is a zoning or a scheme or there is a prohibition for using a building for non-residential purpose in a residential area, then a part of the said building even if it is not used for any residential purposes, would remain residential building. S. Narinder Singh and another v. Manohar Singh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 188 (P&H).
Rent Laws -- Need for son -- Requirement of non-residential premises by the landlord would also include the requirement of the said premises by his son. Gurbaj Singh v. Parshotam Singh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 294 (P&H).
Rent Laws -- Residential building – Eviction of tenant -- Demised premises is in the market where there is no zoning and there is no evidence that it is connected with the main residential building from any side and has been found to be continuously let out for non-residential purposes, therefore, the landlord can seek eviction of the tenant by treating it to be a non-residential building for non-residential purposes. S. Narinder Singh and another v. Manohar Singh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 188 (P&H).
Non-speaking order
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Duty of Authorities -- Evacuee property -- Ejectment order – 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).
Non-utilization of Surplus area
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).
Notice
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 -- Removal of Sarpanch -- No-confidence motion – 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).
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Removal of Sarpanch – No-confidence motion – 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).
Notice for demolition of construction
Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 -- Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Act, 1963 – Controlled area – Land within Municipal limits -- Competent authority -- Held, 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).
Notice of order of demolition
Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 -- 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).
Notification of Panch elected
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).
NRI Co-owner
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act -- Letting out/ Tenancy, not necessary to be by N.R.I. -- Letting out is not a sine-qua-non to maintain eviction petition -- A co-owner NRI can seek eviction of the tenant in a building though the tenant was not inducted by such NRI and that it is not necessary that all other co-owners should be Non Resident Indians. Smt. Bachan Kaur and others v. Kabal Singh & Another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 263 (P&H DB).
NRI landlord
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act -- Bonafide need -- Eviction petition through Attorney -- Attorney is the father-in-law of the landlord and thus, it cannot be said that he is not in the knowledge of the personal facts which are necessary for disposal of petition – Rent Controller held that petition filed through power of attorney is maintainable – Order upheld. M/s. Hind Sons Agency and Ors. v. Sh. Jai Parkash Jain, 2011(3) L.A.R. 274 (P&H).
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act -- Letting out/ Tenancy, not necessary to be by N.R.I. -- Letting out is not a sine-qua-non to maintain eviction petition -- A co-owner NRI can seek eviction of the tenant in a building though the tenant was not inducted by such NRI and that it is not necessary that all other co-owners should be Non Resident Indians. Smt. Bachan Kaur and others v. Kabal Singh & Another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 263 (P&H DB).
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 -- Lesee for 99 years – Petition u/s 13-B maintainable – Leave to defend -- Tenant filed an application seeking 'leave to defend', which has been allowed by the Rent Controller only on the ground that the petitioner is not the owner and is rather a lessee having a lease of 99 years of the demised premises from the P.S.S.I.C -- “Whether a licensee of a property for a period of 99 years having a right to possession and transfer falls within the definition of owner for the purpose of a petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act ? – “Whether or not the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises for the purpose of instituting a suit for eviction in terms of the Act ?” -- Question posed by the Landlord is to be answered in his favour -- Order of Rent Controller set aside – Since leave to defend is being declined, the matter is remanded back to the Rent Controller, to pass order of eviction in accordance with law. Swadesh Ranjan Sinha’s case 1991 (4) SCC 572 relied. Kanwaljit Singh v. Banarsi Dass, 2011(3) L.A.R. 175 (P&H).
NRI Landlord/Owner
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act -- Summary right of eviction – Object of granting summary right of eviction to a Non Resident Indian is to provide mechanism for possession of their own residential building, as an exception to rigid legal provisions of the existing provisions of the law -- Such right is manifested when right of eviction is conferred on an owner. Smt. Bachan Kaur and others v. Kabal Singh & Another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 263 (P&H DB).
No comments:
Post a Comment