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

Finality of order

Public Premises laws -- 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).

Public Premises laws -- 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).

Financial loss to Panchayat

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 -- Recovery from Sarpanch – Right of -- Ex-Sarpanch cannot possibly be called upon to explain and to make good any loss, after the expiry of six years from the occurrence of loss, waste or misapplication, or after the expiry of two years from her ceasing to be a Sarpanch, whichever is earlier. Gram Panchayat, Village Jatuwas v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 685 (P&H).

Recovery of – Limitation -- Validity of 53(5) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Challenge to – Sub-Section (5) introduces a kind of limitation of six years after the occurrence of the incident of loss or two years from the date that a person had ceased to be a Sarpanch or Panch -- Sub-Section (5), does not bar the eventual steps for recovery that may follow the determination of loss, waste or mis-application, as may be -- Bar imposed is only with regard to the initiation of the process by asking upon the delinquent to explain – Held, there is no infirmity in the said provisions of the Act. Gram Panchayat, Village Jatuwas v. Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 674 (P&H DB).

Franchise agreement is not lease

Rent Laws -- Bonafide need -- Agreement to carry on the franchise business of ESPRIT of global lifestyle brand does not amount to lease -- It is a simpliciter franchise agreement -- One has to see intention of the parties -- No material to say that agreement is a lease -- Once possession remains with the landlords and the landlords are selling the items of Firm, then it cannot be said to be a lease -- To establish lease, possession has to be transferred in favour of the lessee. Balbir Kaur and others v. Roop Lal and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 101 (P&H).

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).

Future acquisition

Allotment of flat by Society – Date of Eligibility – Petitioner submitted an affidavit on 8.6.1983 to the effect that he or his dependent family member did not own or possess any other residential allotment of a house in Chandigarh, Mohali or Panchkula -- Wife of the petitioner had been allotted a house at reserve price on 15.9.1983 – Held, eligibility of an individual to get a plot has nothing to do so far as future acquisitions are concerned -- Impugned orders cancelling allotment of a plot to the petitioners, quashed. Chandigarh Housing Board’s case 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 640, relied. Jai Bhagwan Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 42 (P&H DB).