Reasons not given for Remand
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).
Re-assessment of Assessment of annual rental value
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 -- House Tax – 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 – 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).
Recommendation of revenue authorities
Appointment of Lambardar – 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).
Recovery from Sarpanch
Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Financial loss to Panchayat – 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 Financial loss to Panchayat
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).
Recovery of Rent
Punjab Tenancy Act -- Eviction of tenant – 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).
Re-determination in the hands of Legal representatives
Pendency of Surplus land proceedings – 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).
Reference to Registrar
Co-operative Societies Laws -- Termination of employee of Society – Service dispute of an employee of Society -- 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).
Re-framing of mode of partition
Legality of -- 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.).
Registered Will
Mutation -- 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.).
Regular enquiry
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).
Suspension/Removal of Sarpanch -- Preliminary Enquiry -- Exoneration from charges – 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 -- Preliminary enquiry – 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).
Rejection of plaint
Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 -- Election petition -- Deficiency in security deposit – Opportunity to deposit -- Maintainability of appeal -- 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).
Relevant date for determining compensation
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – The context in which the words are used in sections 4(1) and 6, and the context in which the same words are used in section 23(1) are completely different – In section 23(1), the words “the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1)” would refer to the date of publication of the notification in the gazette. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority v. Gobinda Chandra Makal & Anr., 2011(3) L.A.R. 618 (SC).
Remand of case
Reasons not given – 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).
Rent Laws -- Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to remand the whole case to the Controller for fresh decision however, in its discretion is entitled to make such further inquiry, either himself or through Controller -- Impugned order of remand is modified to the extent that instead of deciding the whole case a fresh, the Rent Controller will record a finding on issue framed by the Appellate Authority after allowing the parties opportunities to lead evidence. Smt.Prabha Sehgal v. Shri Subhash Sahoonja, 2011(3) L.A.R. 692 (P&H).
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).
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).
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – 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).
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – 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).
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 -- 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).
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – No-confidence motion -- 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-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).
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – 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).
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – 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).
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – No-confidence motion – 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).
Suspension of Sarpanch – Aggrieved party – 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).
Suspension 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).
Rent Controller/Civil Court
Rent Laws -- Execution of eviction order – Objections – Whether the Rent Controller can execute the order of eviction as a decree which is executable only by a Civil Court – Held, Civil Judges are exercising the powers of the Rent Controllers, therefore, it is only a matter of nomenclature that when the rent petition is filed it is to be addressed to the Rent Controller and when execution is filed it is to be addressed to the Civil Court who is none-else then the Rent Controller -- Objections dismissed -- Direction issued to all the Rent Controllers in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory Chandigarh to mention in their orders that they are deciding the execution as Rent Controller-cum-Civil Court instead of hearing the objections as Rent Controller so that this kind of frivolous objection may not be raised in future leading to a litigation before this Court. Sewa Singh v. Shri Mohinder Singh, 2011(3) L.A.R. 359 (P&H).
Re-open of Surplus area proceedings
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).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 -- 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), 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).
Representation
Non deciding of – Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 -- 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).
Reservation of land
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 -- 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).
Reservation of Sarpanch/Panch
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 -- 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 – 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).
Residential building
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 – 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 -- 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).
Resjudicata
Public Premises laws – Eviction of Unauthorised persons – 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).
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Eviction of tenant – Title dispute – 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).
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Eviction petition – 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).
Restoration of Surplus land
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).
Retirement of employee
Government Residences [Chandigarh Administration General Pool] Allotment Rules, 1996 – Retention of Government accommodation – Right of -- Rule 13, sub-rule 5 carves out an exception, allowing the period of retention to be extended beyond the period stated in the table under Rule 13(2) of the Allotment Rules on payment of higher licence fee – Held, there is no reason why a government servant should be permitted to retain the accommodation beyond 4 to 6 months, which period is permissible under the substantive rules -- Rules 13(1) and 13(2) are comprehensive, specific and provide more than reasonable time for a government servant to vacate the accommodation allotted to him/her -- Rule 13(5) not sustainable and the authorities are directed not to take recourse to the said provision under any circumstance -- No case of retention of government accommodation beyond the periods specified in the table to Rule 13(2) of the Allotment Rules shall be entertained by any authority under the Allotment Rules. Mrs. Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 504 (SC).
Review
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 -- 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 Tenancy Act -- Section 82 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).
Revision
Co-operative Society Laws -- Dismissal of employee of Society – Appeal under Common Cadre Rules – 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).
Co-operative Society Laws -- 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).
Co-operative Society Laws -- Service matter of Society -- 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).
Co-operative Society Laws -- 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).
Co-operative Society Laws -- 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).
Co-operative Society Laws -- 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).
Co-operative Societies Laws -- Interim order – Stay of award -- Right of – 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).
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 -- Interlocutory orders -- Appeal – Prior to the Harjit Singh Uppal’s judgment, JT 2011(6) SC 236 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was consistent view of the High Court that appeals filed against the order of Rent Controller except u/s 4, 10, 12 and 13 of Rent Act were not appealable and only revision was maintainable before High Court against such orders – Thus, the earlier withdrawal of the appeal to avail the remedy of revision petition cannot come in their way to pursue their remedy of appeal filed before the Appellate Authority. Harish Chand and others v. Anil Kumar, 2011(3) L.A.R. 37 (P&H).
Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 -- Compulsory bifurcation of society – 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).
Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 -- Representation – Non deciding 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).
Revisional Powers
Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 -- Apart from the right of appeal, revision etc. u/s 18 of the Haryana Act, the Financial Commissioner has very wide suo motu powers to test the legality and validity of an order passed by any authority subordinate to him -- Such suo motu powers can be exercised on being approached as well -- Financial Commissioner was justified in taking a view that once the facts of the case were brought to his notice, he was competent to test the legality or validity of the orders. Fakiria & others v. The State of Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 583 (P&H).
Right of purchaser
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Landlord’s permissible area – Tenant’s permissible area – Surplus area – Determination of -- 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).
Surplus area – Non-utilization of – 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).
Right of re-allottee
Encroachment -- Possession of the plot was delivered to the original allottee free from all encumbrances -- HUDA cannot be blamed for the encroachment, if any, made after possession of the plot was delivered to the original allottee nor the re-allottee could possibly accuse the HUDA of deficiency in service in the matter of allotment of plot on the ground that some people had made encroachment on it -- Finding recorded by the District Forum that there was deficiency in service on the HUDA’s part is erroneous – Order of District Forum for allotment of alternative plot to the re-allottee set aside. Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Viresh Sangwan & Another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 526 (SC).
Right of transferee
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Landlord’s permissible area – Tenant’s permissible area – Surplus area – Determination of -- 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).
Surplus area – Non-utilization of – 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).
Right to Allotment
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 -- Haryana Utilization of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1972 – Landlord’s permissible area – Tenant’s permissible area – 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).
Right to Purchase
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 -- Haryana Utilization of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1972 – Landlord’s permissible area – Tenant’s permissible area – 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).
Right to vote
Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 -- Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 -- Constitution of India – Sehajdhari Sikhs – 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 – Sehajdhari Sikhs – 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 -- Sehajdhari Sikhs – 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 -- Sehajdhari Sikhs -- 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).
Role of Judiciary
Constitution of India – There is a broad separation of power under the Constitution between the three organs of the democracy -- As per the Constitutional Scheme, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary are not required to encroach into each others domains and no organ can usurp the function assigned to another – Law summarized -- (i) Each organ of the State -the legislature, the executive and the judiciary must have respect for the others and must not encroach into each others domains -- (ii) Adjudication must be done within the system of historically validated restraints and conscious minimization of the Judges' preferences -- (iii) The Court must not embarrass the administrative authorities and must realize that administrative authorities have expertise in the field of administration while the Court does not -- (iv) If there is a law, Judges can certainly enforce it, but Judges cannot create a law and seek to enforce it -- (v) Judicial restraint may also be called judicial respect, that is, respect by the judiciary for the other coequal branches -- (vi) Restraint stabilizes the judiciary so that it may better function in a system of inter-branch equality -- (vii) Judicial restraint tends to protect the independence of the judiciary -- (viii) The constitutional trade-off for independence is that judges must restrain themselves from the areas reserved to the other separate branches -- (ix) Thus, judicial restraint complements the twin, overarching values of the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers -- (x) The touchstone of an independent judiciary has been its removal from the political or administrative process -- (xi) When courts encroach into the legislative or administrative fields almost inevitably voters, legislators, and other elected officials will conclude that the activities of judges should be closely monitored -- (xii) If judges act like legislators or administrators it follows that judges should be elected like legislators or selected and trained like administrators. Satpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 636 (P&H).
Role of Lambardar
Punjab Land Revenue Act -- 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).
Rules & Orders of Punjab & Haryana High Court
Rule 4 Chapter 1 Part K Volume 1 – East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13(2)(i) -- Arrears of rent -- Tender of rent -- Holiday – Duties of the parties -- If the adjourned date is not an unanticipated holiday but a holiday already declared in the calendar for the judicial Courts for the States of Punjab, Haryana and UT Chandigarh or is a Sunday, then in that circumstance, Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules & Orders would not be applicable because it deals with only an unanticipated holiday and not a holiday which is already known -- In this regard, no rule is brought to the notice of the Court by the parties and in these circumstances, the parties appearing before the Court in such type of cases, can always pray for a date for proper orders. Surinder Kumar and another v. Smt. Leela Devi, 2011(3) L.A.R. 236 (P&H).
Rule 4 Chapter 1 Part K Volume 1 – Unanticipated holidays – Presiding officer on leave – 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).
No comments:
Post a Comment