Sale deed
Transfer of property – Scope of agreement of sale -- Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of sections 54 and 55 of TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted u/s 53A of TP Act) -- According to TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance -- Section 54 of TP Act enacts that sale of immoveable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject matter. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 593 (SC).
Transfer of property – Scope of agreement of sale -- Transfer of immoveable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed) -- In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immoveable property can be transferred. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 593 (SC).
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.).
Sarbrah Lambardar
Appointment of 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.).
Scope of agreement of sale
Transfer of property – Sale deed -- Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of sections 54 and 55 of TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted u/s 53A of TP Act) -- According to TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance -- Section 54 of TP Act enacts that sale of immoveable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject matter. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 593 (SC).
Transfer of property – Sale deed -- Transfer of immoveable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed) -- In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immoveable property can be transferred. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 593 (SC).
Scope of Power of Attorney
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).
Scope of Will
Transfer of property by Will -- A will is the testament of the testator -- It is a posthumous disposition of the estate of the testator directing distribution of his estate upon his death -- It is not a transfer inter vivos -- Two essential characteristics of a will are that it is intended to come into effect only after the death of the testator and is revocable at any time during the life time of the testator -- It is said that so long as the testator is alive, a will is not be worth the paper on which it is written, as the testator can at any time revoke it -- If the testator, who is not married, marries after making the will, by operation of law, the will stands revoked -- Registration of a will does not make it any more effective. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 593 (SC).
Sehajdhari Sikhs
Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 -- Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 -- Constitution of India – Right to vote -- Delegated legislation – 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).
Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 -- Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 -- Constitution of India – Delegated legislation – 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).
Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 -- Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 -- 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).
Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 -- 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).
Self cultivation
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953) -- 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).
Service dispute of an employee of Society
Co-operative Societies Laws -- 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).
Service matter of Society
Co-operative Society Laws -- 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).
Service Rules of Societies
Co-operative Societies Laws -- 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).
Shamilat deh/ Shamlat land
Exchange of land – Power of Director Consolidation – 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) Act, 1961 -- 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. Kapur Singh and others v. Collector-cum-District Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 382 (P&H).
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (For Punjab) -- 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).
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (For Punjab) -- 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).
Shortfall of area in consolidation proceedings
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 -- Determination of Landlord’s permissible area – 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).
Show cause notice
HUDA Act -- Jurisdiction of Civil Court -- Show cause notice proposing action u/s 55 of the Act could not be challenged in Civil Court in view of categorical and mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Act. Dr. Harish Handa v. Virender Kumar and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 259 (P&H).
Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (8 of 1925)
Section 45, 49, 92 -- Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 (31 of 1966), Section 72 -- 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 45, 49, 92 -- Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 (31 of 1966), Section 72 -- 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 45, 49, 92 -- Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 (31 of 1966), Section 72 -- 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 45, 49, 92 -- Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 (31 of 1966), Section 72 -- 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 47-A -- Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 (31 of 1966), Section 72 – 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).
Small landowner
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953) -- 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).
Small sale instances
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Acquisition of land – Market value – Two sale instances related to a small parcel of land – In the absence of any other exemplar, such sale instance could be relied upon for the purpose of fixing market value of the acquired land, after applying an appropriate cut. R. Saragapani (Dead) through L.Rs. v. The Special Tahsildar, Karur-Dindigul Broadguage Line, 2011(3) L.A.R. 571 (SC).
Special leave petition dismissed
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Acquisition of land – Writ on other ground by other landowner – Maintainability of -- Writ petitions filed by the brothers had been dismissed on the ground of delay and the writ appeals and the SLP were dismissed, but that could not be made basis for denying relief because his brothers had neither questioned the diversification of land to private persons nor prayed for restoration of their respective shares -- Special leave petitions were summarily dismissed, such dismissal did not amount to this Court’s approval of the view taken by the High Court on the legality of the acquisition and transfer of land to private persons. M/s. Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and another v. G. Jayarama Reddy and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 481 (SC).
Standard rent
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 -- Assessment of value of land – Market 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).
Stay of award
Co-operative Societies Laws -- Revision – 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. Promila Suri and others v. The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 47 (P&H).
Sub-letting
Rent Laws -- Whether the tenant facing allegation of subletting, who has neither filed his written statement nor adopted the written statement of other co-tenants, is deemed to have admitted the averments made in the eviction petition in terms of Order 8 Rule 5 of CPC? -- Held, if the averments made in the plaint is not specifically denied by the defendant by not filing the written statement, then the averments are taken to be admitted in view of Order 8 Rule 5 of CPC. Shri Gopal Singh and another v. Gurdeep Singh and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 312 (P&H).
Subsequent events
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act -- Bonafide need to start business – Pleadings – 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).
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).
Sub-tenancy
Rent Laws -- Whether the tenant facing allegation of subletting, who has neither filed his written statement nor adopted the written statement of other co-tenants, is deemed to have admitted the averments made in the eviction petition in terms of Order 8 Rule 5 of CPC? -- Held, if the averments made in the plaint is not specifically denied by the defendant by not filing the written statement, then the averments are taken to be admitted in view of Order 8 Rule 5 of CPC. Shri Gopal Singh and another v. Gurdeep Singh and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 312 (P&H).
Summary right of eviction
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act -- NRI Landlord/Owner – 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).
Suo motu power
Co-operative Society Laws -- Revision – Maintainability of – 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).
Co-operative Society Laws -- Revision – Maintainability of – 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).
Co-operative Society Laws -- Revision – Maintainability of -- 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).
Surplus area/Surplus land
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 Land Reforms Act, 1972 -- Non-utilization of land – 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 Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 -- Declaration 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).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 -- Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 -- 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).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Landlord’s permissible area – Tenant’s permissible 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).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Landlord’s permissible 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).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Landlord’s permissible area – Tenant’s permissible area –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).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Re-open 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), 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).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – 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).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – 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).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – 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).
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).
Suspension of Panch/ 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).
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).
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).
Preliminary enquiry -- 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).
Preliminary enquiry -- 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).
Removal of Sarpanch – Complainant is an aggrieved person -- Appeal filed by complainant was very much maintainable before the appellate authority. Guddu Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Saunti and other v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 180 (P&H).
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).
Suspicious circumstances
Will – Witness deposed, the testator had affixed left thumb mark on Exhibit D.1 and he had signed the Will as a witness in the clinic -- Witness did not say that testator had affixed left thumb mark in his presence and that he had put his signatures as witness in the presence of the testator -- Executant was suffering from acute stomach cancer and was not in a position to eat or walk -- Just 14 days after the execution of the second Will, the executant died – Held, execution of Will was highly suspicious. Dayanandi v. Rukma D. Suvarna and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 534 (SC).
No comments:
Post a Comment