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

Jurisdiction of Appellate Authority

Rent Laws -- Remand of case – 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. Raghu Nath Jalota’s case AIR 1980 (P&H) 188 relied. Smt.Prabha Sehgal v. Shri Subhash Sahoonja, 2011(3) L.A.R. 692 (P&H).

Jurisdiction of Civil Court

HUDA Act -- Show cause notice – 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).

Partition of agricultural land – When the agricultural land before partition loses its nature as such by the acts of the parties, particularly, who is seeking partition, then such land cannot be partitioned by the revenue Court -- A co-sharer can raise an objection that the land, which has been shown in the revenue record as agricultural and assessed to land revenue, should not be partitioned as the same due to the acts of the other co-sharer, who is seeking partition, loses its nature as an agricultural land -- Revenue authorities were fully justified while coming to the conclusion that with the subsequent wide constructions raised, the land in dispute cannot be partitioned by the revenue Court -- Since the revenue Court itself has held that the appellant can approach the Civil Court, the bar created by Section 158(2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act will not come in the way. Surjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner Appeals-II, Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 366 (P&H DB).

Public Premises laws -- Finality of order – Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit to set aside the order passed by the Collector or Commissioner under the said Act. Kamla Wati and others v. The Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, Government of India, New Delhi and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 126 (P&H).

Public Premises laws -- Finality of order – It was only the Deputy Commissioner, who was having a right to grant temporary lease qua the open site – Lessee has no right to induct other as tenant on the said wooden khokha and hence Government was having right to resume the site in dispute – Order in this regard has already been passed by the Collector, which was upheld in appeal by the Commissioner and hence, the orders have become final -- Said orders could not be quashed by the civil Court. Kamla Wati and others v. The Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, Government of India, New Delhi and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 126 (P&H).

Wakf Act, 1995 -- Nothing in Section 83 to suggest that it pushes the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts extends beyond what has been provided for in Section 6(5), Section 7 and Section 85 of the Act -- It simply empowers the Government to constitute a Tribunal or Tribunals for determination of any dispute, question of other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property which does not ipso facto mean that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts stands completely excluded by reasons of such establishment. Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2011(3) L.A.R. 141 (SC).

Wakf Act, 1995 – Wakf property – Wakf Tribunal – Expression “for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property” appearing in Section 83(1) also appears in Section 85 of the Act -- Crucial question that shall have to be answered in every case where a plea regarding exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is raised is whether the Tribunal is under the Act or the Rules required to deal with the matter sought to be brought before a Civil Court -- If it is not, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not excluded -- But if the Tribunal is required to decide the matter the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would stand excluded. Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2011(3) L.A.R. 141 (SC).

Wakf property -- Eviction of tenant -- Act does not provide for any proceedings before the Tribunal for determination of a dispute concerning the eviction of a tenant in occupation of a wakf property or the rights and obligations of the lessor and the lessees of such property -- A suit seeking eviction of the tenants from wakf property could, therefore, be filed only before the Civil Court and not before the Tribunal. Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2011(3) L.A.R. 141 (SC).

Wakf property – Wakf Tribunal -- Jurisdiction to determine whether or not a property is a wakf property or whether a wakf is a Shia wakf or a Sunni wakf rests entirely with the Tribunal and no suit or other proceeding can be instituted or commenced in a Civil Court in relation to any such question after the commencement of the Act – Institution of the Civil Court is barred only in regard to questions that are specifically enumerated therein -- Bar is not complete so as to extend to other questions that may arise in relation to the wakf property. Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through Lrs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, 2011(3) L.A.R. 141 (SC).

Jurisdiction of High Court

Post of Lambardar – Abolition of post – High Court did not have the power/jurisdiction to direct the State Government to amend the Act/relevant Rules to abolish the age-old very important institution of the Lambardar and to further amend the other relevant Acts to assign the duties to the Panchayati Raj Act/Institutions in this relevant connection. Satpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 636 (P&H).

Jurisdiction of Rent Controller

Rent Laws -- Assessment of provisional rent – Extension of time – Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period of time for the purpose of tendering provisionally assessed rent without there being any reason. Sanjeet Singh v. Mohali Motor Finance Co. and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 247 (P&H).

Jurisdiction of Revenue court

Partition of agricultural land – When the agricultural land before partition loses its nature as such by the acts of the parties, particularly, who is seeking partition, then such land cannot be partitioned by the revenue Court -- A co-sharer can raise an objection that the land, which has been shown in the revenue record as agricultural and assessed to land revenue, should not be partitioned as the same due to the acts of the other co-sharer, who is seeking partition, loses its nature as an agricultural land -- Revenue authorities were fully justified while coming to the conclusion that with the subsequent wide constructions raised, the land in dispute cannot be partitioned by the revenue Court -- Since the revenue Court itself has held that the appellant can approach the Civil Court, the bar created by Section 158(2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act will not come in the way. Surjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner Appeals-II, Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 366 (P&H DB).