Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972)
Section 3(r), 4 -- Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), 2(5-a) -- Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, Form-F Rule 6 -- Surplus land – Declaration of – 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).
Section 4,9 -- Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 2(3), 5-B – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), 42 -- Landlord’s permissible area – Determination of -- Shortfall while in consolidation proceedings -- 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).
Section 12(3) – Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), 2(5-a) -- Surplus land – Restoration of -- 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).
Section 18 – Revisional Powers -- 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).
Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984)
Section 114, 115 – Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), Section 68, 69 – Revision – Maintainability of – 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).
Section 115 – Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), Section 69 – Revision – Maintainability of – 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).
Section 115 – Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), Section 69 – Revision – Maintainability of – 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).
Section 115 – Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), Section 69 – Service matter of Society -- 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).
Section 115 – Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), Section 69 – Revision – Maintainability of -- 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).
Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 (20 of 1971)
Section 74 – Housing Board Haryana (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1972, Regulation 10, 11(4) -- Allotment of tenement – Enhancement of land compensation – Right of Housing Board to recover from allottee -- Housing Board constructed tenements on acquired land -- Allotment made at the price fixed -- Hire Purchase Tenancy agreement stipulated that Board could enhance the price of tenements on receipt of final Bill of construction or there was increase in compensation payable to land owners, however, Board’s power to revise the price of the tenements is hedged with the limitation of 7 years – Land cost increased on account of higher compensation to landowners – Held, Board is not entitled to revise price after 7 years of allotment. Ishwar Dass Nassa and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 545 (SC).
Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (24 of 1973)
Section 203C -- Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (16 of 1994), Section 346 -- Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (41 of 1963), Section 4 – Controlled area – Land within Municipal limits -- Notice for demolition of construction – Municipal Committee has the power to prohibit the construction of the buildings in a particular area -- The Municipal Act is general statute dealing with the administration of municipalities and maintenance and protection of streets or buildings which prohibits the construction of the buildings in a particular area -- However, the 1963 Act, is a special statute regulating and controlling the development of haphazard growth and slums in and around the Scheduled roads and around the urban areas, which has been declared as controlled area -- Even in the municipal limits, there exist schedule roads -- To say, that Municipal Act will override the Special Statute is not correct -- Both the Statutes enacted by State Legislature are required to be construed harmoniously even if they touch the same subject at the same time, though, they do not -- The special Act will prevail over the General Statute -- The said aspect has been clarified with the insertion of Section 203 C of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 and Section 346 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 -- Thus, the challenge to the demolition of the construction in violation of the controlled area plan is wholly misconceived. Smt. Poonam v. The District Town Planner, Karnal, 2011(3) L.A.R. 385 (P&H).
Section 203C -- Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (41 of 1963), Section 4 – Controlled area – Land within municipal limits -- Contention that, Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/s Shiva Ice Factory’s case, in CWP No. 8011 of 1999 decided on 12.12.2007 held that the notification under the provisions of the 1963 Act is not applicable to an area which is included in the municipal limits – Held, though, the Full Bench judgment supports the arguments raised but the fact remains that the Full Bench was not apprised of the amendments in the statute carried out by the Haryana Act No.1 of 2001, whereby Section 203 C of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 has been inserted – In view of the aforesaid statutory provision incorporated, reliance placed upon a Full Bench judgment, is not tenable. Smt. Poonam v. The District Town Planner, Karnal, 2011(3) L.A.R. 385 (P&H).
Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (16 of 1994)
Section 2(4), 346 -- Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (41 of 1963), Section 4 – Controlled area – Land within Municipal limits -- Notice for demolition of construction – Competent authority -- Contention that since, the land in dispute is the part of the Municipal Corporation, it is only the Commissioner, as defined under Section 2(4) of the 1994 Act, who is competent to issue notice for demolition of the construction -- Held, section 346 of 1994 Act starts with non obstante Clause, section gives over riding effect to the plans prepared under 1963 Act -- In terms of the Section 346 of the 1994 Act, the declaration of the controlled area under 1963 Act is valid, if controlled area is not declared under the 1994 Act -- Since, the controlled area has been declared under the 1963 Act, therefore, the Town and Country Planner under the aforesaid Act is competent to issue notice to the petitioner for demolition. Smt. Poonam v. The District Town Planner, Karnal, 2011(3) L.A.R. 385 (P&H).
Section 346 -- Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (24 of 1973), Section 203C -- Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (41 of 1963), Section 4 – Controlled area – Land within Municipal limits -- Notice for demolition of construction – Municipal Committee has the power to prohibit the construction of the buildings in a particular area -- The Municipal Act is general statute dealing with the administration of municipalities and maintenance and protection of streets or buildings which prohibits the construction of the buildings in a particular area -- However, the 1963 Act, is a special statute regulating and controlling the development of haphazard growth and slums in and around the Scheduled roads and around the urban areas, which has been declared as controlled area -- Even in the municipal limits, there exist schedule roads -- To say, that Municipal Act will override the Special Statute is not correct -- Both the Statutes enacted by State Legislature are required to be construed harmoniously even if they touch the same subject at the same time, though, they do not -- The special Act will prevail over the General Statute -- The said aspect has been clarified with the insertion of Section 203 C of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 and Section 346 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 -- Thus, the challenge to the demolition of the construction in violation of the controlled area plan is wholly misconceived. Smt. Poonam v. The District Town Planner, Karnal, 2011(3) L.A.R. 385 (P&H).
Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994)
Section 53(5) – Financial loss to Panchayat – Recovery from Sarpanch – Right of -- Ex-Sarpanch cannot possibly be called upon to explain and to make good any loss, after the expiry of six years from the occurrence of loss, waste or misapplication, or after the expiry of two years from her ceasing to be a Sarpanch, whichever is earlier. Gram Panchayat, Village Jatuwas v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 685 (P&H).
Section 53(5) – Financial loss to Panchayat – Recovery of – Limitation -- Validity of 53(5) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Challenge to – Sub-Section (5) introduces a kind of limitation of six years after the occurrence of the incident of loss or two years from the date that a person had ceased to be a Sarpanch or Panch -- Sub-Section (5), does not bar the eventual steps for recovery that may follow the determination of loss, waste or mis-application, as may be -- Bar imposed is only with regard to the initiation of the process by asking upon the delinquent to explain – Held, there is no infirmity in the said provisions of the Act. Gram Panchayat, Village Jatuwas v. Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 674 (P&H DB).
Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (24 of 1972)
Section 4 -- Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad (Sales, lease and other alienation of property and public places Rules), 1964, Rule 3 – Unauthorized occupant -- Lease – Expiry of – Extension of – Right of – Lessee was always prepared to pay the additional rents for every year commencing from the date when the petition was filed – Held, if there are rules, which allow for extension of lease beyond the initial period and if the tenant is willing to pay the additional rent as required under the Rules, he cannot be treated as an unauthorized occupant to justify an action for eviction -- Order of eviction made by the authorities under the Public Premises Act cannot be sustained and it is quashed. Krishan Kumar v. Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt. and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 374 (P&H).
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973)
Section 13(2)(ii)(a) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 5 -- Sub-tenancy – Non denial of – Effect of -- 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).
Section 13(3)(c), 13(6) -- Unsafe and unfit for human habitation -- Eviction petition -- Compromise -- After reconstruction repossession will be given to tenant -- Withdrawal of petition -- Restoration of possession – Right of -- During the pendency of the eviction petition, a written compromise was arrived, according to which the tenant handed over vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord on the condition that he would let it out to him again after demolition and reconstruction, on a monthly rent of Rs.1,250/- including house tax – No decree passed, rather the possession was handed over by the tenant to the landlord -- View that if there was no order of eviction by the Court and the petition was only dismissed as withdrawn it would not attract the provisions of Section 13(6) of the Act, would not be tenable -- Authorities below disallowing the restoration of possession to tenant -- Revision against the orders allowed and the impugned orders set aside. Chhotey Lal v. Rajender Kumar, 2011(3) L.A.R. 154 (P&H).
Section 15 – Interlocutory orders -- Appeal – Revision -- 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).
Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations, 1978
Regulations 5(3), 20 – Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977), Section 15 -- Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 12 -- Allotment of plot – Delivery of possession – Encroachment thereafter -- Right of re-allottee – Possession of the plot was delivered to the original allottee free from all encumbrances -- No provision in Act and Regulation for redelivery of possession to the transferees – 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).
Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977)
Section 15 -- Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations, 1978, Regulations 5(3), 20 – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 12 –
Section 15 -- Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations, 1978, Regulations 5(3), 20 – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 12 -- Allotment of plot – Delivery of possession – Encroachment thereafter -- Right of re-allottee – Possession of the plot was delivered to the original allottee free from all encumbrances -- No provision in Act and Regulation for redelivery of possession to the transferees – 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).
Section 50, 55 – Show cause notice – 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).
Haryana Utilization of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1972
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 2(3), 18 -- Landlord’s permissible area – Tenant’s permissible area – Right to Purchase/allotment -- 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).
Holiday
Rent Laws -- Arrears of rent -- Tender of rent -- 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).
House Tax
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 -- Re-assessment of annual rental value – 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).
Housing Board Haryana (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1972
Regulation 10, 11(4) -- Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 (20 of 1971), Section 74 – Allotment of tenement – Enhancement of land compensation – Right of Housing Board to recover from allottee -- Housing Board constructed tenements on acquired land -- Allotment made at the price fixed -- Hire Purchase Tenancy agreement stipulated that Board could enhance the price of tenements on receipt of final Bill of construction or there was increase in compensation payable to land owners, however, Board’s power to revise the price of the tenements is hedged with the limitation of 7 years – Land cost increased on account of higher compensation to landowners – Held, Board is not entitled to revise price after 7 years of allotment. Ishwar Dass Nassa and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 545 (SC).
No comments:
Post a Comment