Local Acts Reporter
March Part
2012(1)L.A.R.
SUBJECT INDEX
Acquisition of land
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Release of 90 % land – Other landholder’s right -- At the time of awards, substantial area was released being thickly constructed – 90% area has been recommended for exclusion from acquisition -- Public purpose of acquiring the land seems to have been defeated -- Whereas the land/construction belonging to the petitioners is sought to be acquired -- Such an action would smacks of arbitrariness and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution -- Notifications u/s 4 and 6 of the Act as well as the awards subsequently passed, set aside. Satish Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 324 (P&H DB).
Adverse possession
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Occupants cannot claim title over the Panchayat property u/s 11 of the Act being in adverse possession. Hazara Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 247 (P&H DB).
Amendment in electoral roll
Punjab State Election Commission Act -- Nomination is over – Effect of -- There cannot be any amendment by way of transposition or deletion in the electoral roll of a constituency after the date of making nominations is over. Suresh Kumar Singla v. Election Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 363 (P&H).
Appeal
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Stay of impugned order – Speaking order – Natural justice -- Appellate Authority has the power to stay the order impugned -- No reason is required to be given while granting the stay of the order – No requirement of the principles of natural justice that even such interim order is to be speaking order. Hazara Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 247 (P&H DB).
Applicability of CPC
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- CPC is not applicable to the proceedings under the Act, but the principles of CPC, which are in consonance with the justice, equity and good conscience, can very well be extended by the Authorities under the Act. Hazara Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 247 (P&H DB).
Appointment of Lambardar
Choice of the Collector is to be respected, in so much as Collector is a Revenue Officer in the District who is required to take work from the Lambardar, in context of provisions of Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. Hoshiar Chand v. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 268 (P&H).
Comparative merits -- Petitioner is more educated being matriculate and a retired teacher, private respondent is 7th pass -- When applications were invited for appointment of Lambardar, the petitioner owned 19 kanals of land whereas respondent owned only 4 kanals and 10 marlas of land -- Merit amongst the candidates is required to be seen at the point in time when applications are to be filled -- Subsequent addition of land would not be a good ground to hold the order passed by the Collector to be perverse – Held, petitioner has an edge over the private respondent. Hoshiar Chand v. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 268 (P&H).
Disqualification -- Petitioner did not intimate the authorities about the death of his father, who was the earlier Lambardar -- Conduct of the petitioner is certainly despicable insomuch as he continued to collect land revenue and continued to perform the duties of Lambardar, without any legal authority to do the same -- In such circumstances, a person like the petitioner, if allowed to be appointed as Lambardar, would not make a good choice. Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 310 (P&H).
Qualification -- Collector, being the appointing authority, was required to consider the relative merits, in the context of educational qualification, for discharge of duties by the incumbent Lambardar, as provided under Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 310 (P&H).
Qualification -- Member Panchayat – Eligibility of -- A Member Panchayat is required to operate within the village/estate and so is the Lambardar -- Rule 15 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules does not provide for any disability to be appointed as Lambardar, in case such a person is a Member Panchayat, rather rule 15 indicates that it would be a qualification if the person has personal influence, character and ability -- A Panch of the village indicates better qualification, in terms of Rule 15 (d) and (e). Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 310 (P&H).
Arrears of rent
Rent Act -- Assessment of provisional rent – Non-tendering of -- Tenant failed to deposit the provisionally assessed rent on the due date -- Order of ejectment has to follow and nothing more is required to be done and the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction at all to extend time. Kundan Singh v. Smt. Roop Rani and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 262 (P&H).
Assessment of House Tax
Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 -- Section 93(c) is applicable only where the rental value cannot be worked out -- Where the property is situated, the provisions of the Rent Act are applicable, there was no bar to assess the rental value -- Matter is remanded back to the Municipal Corporation, to determine the house tax value under Section 93(b). M/s Dwarka Cheap Store v. The Municipal Corporation and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 350 (P&H).
Assessment of provisional rent
Rent Act -- Arrears of rent – Non-tendering of -- Tenant failed to deposit the provisionally assessed rent on the due date -- Order of ejectment has to follow and nothing more is required to be done and the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction at all to extend time. Kundan Singh v. Smt. Roop Rani and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 262 (P&H).
Bonafide need
Rent Act -- Change of user -- There must be first a requirement by the landlord which means that it is not a mere whim or a fanciful desire by him, further such requirement must be bona fide which is intended to avoid the mere wish or desire -- Bona fide requirement must be in praesenti and must be manifested in actual need which would evidence the court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire. Rakesh Kumar v. Darshan Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 271 (P&H).
Rent Act -- Evidence show that other shops are the ownership of Trust and not the ownership of landlord – Tenant failed to point out any other commercial property or shop which is owned by the landlord -- Bonafide requirement of the shop in dispute of the landlord to set up his office stands proved and no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Authorities below – Eviction order upheld. Ramesh Gupta v. Ashok Kumar Jain, 2012(1) L.A.R. 289 (P&H).
Rent Act -- Landlord is the best judge of his needs and the tenant cannot dictate him regarding his suitability of the premises – Simply because, at one point of time, the landlord was planning to let out his residential portion to some bank will not dis-entitle him to seek ejectment on the ground of personal necessity. Jagdish Kaur v. Sat Pal Madan, 2012(1) L.A.R. 240 (P&H).
Rent Act -- Landlord is the best judge of his own needs. Tarsem Chand v. Gurdial Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 253 (P&H).
Rent Act -- Revisional Jurisdiction -- Whether demised premises are required by the landlord for his personal need is essentially a question of fact – Concurrent finding against the tenant, High Court in its revisional jurisdiction will not substitute its opinion with the findings of the courts below only because another view is possible. Jagdish Kaur v. Sat Pal Madan, 2012(1) L.A.R. 240 (P&H).
Rent Act -- Suitability of accommodation -- Tenant is no one to dictate his terms to the landlord in the matter of bona fide requirement with regard to suitability of the accommodation. Rakesh Kumar v. Darshan Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 271 (P&H).
Rent Act -- Vacation of building – Sufficient cause -- Landlord closed his tractor business in the year 2001, whereas he started his new business only in the year 2004 meaning thereby landlord has no idea in the year 2001 that he will be starting his new business – Held, it cannot be said that the landlord had vacated the premises in his occupation after commencement of the Act without sufficient cause. Ramesh Gupta v. Ashok Kumar Jain, 2012(1) L.A.R. 289 (P&H).
Rent Act (Haryana) -- Petition u/s 13-A -- Contention that respondents are in occupation and possession of another adjoining shop, to the shop in dispute which is lying vacant disentitles the respondents to file and maintain the present ejectment application in view of the provisions of section 13 (3)(a) (i) of the Act, thus, no benefit could have been granted to them under section 13-A of the Act – Contention rejected. Surinder Kumar v. Smt. Leela Sharma and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 318 (P&H).
Bonafide need of sons
Rent Act -- Petitioner is to settle his sons in business and has also been proved on file that he has got no other such shop available to him -- Simply because they were doing tempo business does not mean that they were precluded from starting their own independent business -- Law does not expect from the landlord to remain idle and to face starvation during the pendency of the petition. Rakesh Kumar v. Darshan Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 271 (P&H).
Rent Act -- Shop in dispute is required by landlord for starting business of sons -- Fact that the sons of the landlord were taking training in some other business or were doing some business will not disentitle them from doing their own business of any nature in the shop in dispute. Rakesh Kumar v. Darshan Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 271 (P&H).
Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952)
Section 1, 8-A, 22(2)(c) – Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Building) Rules, 1960, Rule 9 -- Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973, Rule 17 – Shop cum flat – Tourist lodge/Guest house – Misuse of premises – Conversion of use of building -- Sites allotted for use as (SCFs), whereas petitioner are using F.F. and S.F. as guest houses/lodges, which is not permissible -- Stand of the administration that until and unless the petitioners seek firstly conversion for use as for the office purposes and secondly to seek permission to use the office portion for commercial purpose i.e. for tourist lodges and guest houses, the petitioners are violating the provisions of the Act and the building is liable to be resumed – Writ petition challenging to notices served u/s 8A of the 1952 Act dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to seek conversion of the use of buildings in terms of the scheme framed under the Act. Gurcharan Singh v. Union Territory Chandigarh & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 330 (P&H DB).
Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Building) Rules, 1960, Rule 9 -- Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952)
Section 1, 8-A, 22(2)(c) – Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973, Rule 17 – Shop cum flat – Tourist lodge/Guest house – Misuse of premises – Conversion of use of building -- Sites allotted for use as (SCFs), whereas petitioner are using F.F. and S.F. as guest houses/lodges, which is not permissible -- Stand of the administration that until and unless the petitioners seek firstly conversion for use as for the office purposes and secondly to seek permission to use the office portion for commercial purpose i.e. for tourist lodges and guest houses, the petitioners are violating the provisions of the Act and the building is liable to be resumed – Writ petition challenging to notices served u/s 8A of the 1952 Act dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to seek conversion of the use of buildings in terms of the scheme framed under the Act. Gurcharan Singh v. Union Territory Chandigarh & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 330 (P&H DB).
Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973, Rule 17 – Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952)
Section 1, 8-A, 22(2)(c) – Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Building) Rules, 1960, Rule 9 -- Shop cum flat – Tourist lodge/Guest house – Misuse of premises – Conversion of use of building -- Sites allotted for use as (SCFs), whereas petitioner are using F.F. and S.F. as guest houses/lodges, which is not permissible -- Stand of the administration that until and unless the petitioners seek firstly conversion for use as for the office purposes and secondly to seek permission to use the office portion for commercial purpose i.e. for tourist lodges and guest houses, the petitioners are violating the provisions of the Act and the building is liable to be resumed – Writ petition challenging to notices served u/s 8A of the 1952 Act dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to seek conversion of the use of buildings in terms of the scheme framed under the Act. Gurcharan Singh v. Union Territory Chandigarh & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 330 (P&H DB).
Change of user
Rent Act -- Written consent of landlord is required, even the knowledge of the landlord of the change of user, may be even from the very inception of the tenancy, would not absolve the tenant for liability for eviction on that ground – Even long user of the changed business does not amount to consent of the landlord to avoid eviction under the Rent Act. Rakesh Kumar v. Darshan Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 271 (P&H).
Choice of Collector
Appointment of Lambardar -- Choice of the Collector is to be respected, in so much as Collector is a Revenue Officer in the District who is required to take work from the Lambardar, in context of provisions of Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. Hoshiar Chand v. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 268 (P&H).
Civil suit
Mutation proceedings – Observation made in the summary proceedings of the mutation by the revenue authorities starting from the Assistant Collector Ist Grade upto the Financial Commissioner, shall not prejudice the mind of the Civil Court and the Civil Court shall independently decide the suit in accordance with law. Mohinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 238 (P&H).
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908)
Section 151 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 -- Applicability of CPC – CPC is not applicable to the proceedings under the Act, but the principles of CPC, which are in consonance with the justice, equity and good conscience, can very well be extended by the Authorities under the Act. Hazara Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 247 (P&H DB).
Comparative merits
Appointment of Lambardar – Petitioner is more educated being matriculate and a retired teacher, private respondent is 7th pass -- When applications were invited for appointment of Lambardar, the petitioner owned 19 kanals of land whereas respondent owned only 4 kanals and 10 marlas of land -- Merit amongst the candidates is required to be seen at the point in time when applications are to be filled -- Subsequent addition of land would not be a good ground to hold the order passed by the Collector to be perverse – Held, petitioner has an edge over the private respondent. Hoshiar Chand v. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 268 (P&H).
Constitution of India
Article 14, 226 – Judicial review -- Constitution enshrines and guarantees rule of law and the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is empowered to ensure that each and every authority of the State, including the government acts bonafide and within the limits of its power -- Where there is arbitrariness in the state action or such action is to help some individual at the cost and peril of other similarly situated person(s) resulting in discrimination leading to depriving him/them of their rights -- Article 14 steps in and judicial review strikes such an action to be not in accordance with law and, thus, has to be struck down. Surinder Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 277 (P&H DB).
Article 243T – Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (3 of 1911), Section 8 – Reservation of seats -- Section 8 of the Act is pari-materia with the provisions of Article 243T -- Reservation of seats for women, Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes alone is mandatory -- How such seats are rotated is left to the State Government with play in joints as there may be situations, where rotation of all the seats may not be feasible keeping in view the population of the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes being concentrated in a pocket of a Municipality. Inderjit v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 353 (P&H DB).
Article 243T – Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (3 of 1911), Section 8 – Reservation of seats -- Intention of Article 243T of the Constitution and Section 8 of the Act is to provide reservation for women, Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes in a Municipality – As to which seats are reserved for them, is a matter of procedure and is directory – Therefore, while rotating the wards, it is not necessary for the State Government to rotate the wards with exactitude -- State has to be given play in knees joints to adjust according to the requirements keeping in view the population of the Backward Classes/Scheduled Castes voters. Inderjit v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 353 (P&H DB).
Conversion of use of building
Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 -- Misuse of premises – Shop cum flat – Tourist lodge/Guest house – Sites allotted for use as (SCFs), whereas petitioner are using F.F. and S.F. as guest houses/lodges, which is not permissible -- Stand of the administration that until and unless the petitioners seek firstly conversion for use as for the office purposes and secondly to seek permission to use the office portion for commercial purpose i.e. for tourist lodges and guest houses, the petitioners are violating the provisions of the Act and the building is liable to be resumed – Writ petition challenging to notices served u/s 8A of the 1952 Act dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to seek conversion of the use of buildings in terms of the scheme framed under the Act. Gurcharan Singh v. Union Territory Chandigarh & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 330 (P&H DB).
Countermanding of Declaration of result
Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 – Respondent No.5 was declared as elected unopposed on 19.5.2008 – On written complaint, election of the Gram Panchayat fixed for 26.5.2008 was countermanded – Thereafter elections were directed to be held on 22.6.2008 -- Respondent No.5 neither challenged the order countermanding the election nor filed nomination for the said election nor challenged the declaration of the result of petitioner No.1 as having been elected -- However, the Deputy Commissioner vide letter, stated that who had filed their nomination papers earlier were to be elected as having been declared elected unopposed -- Consequently the name of respondent No.5 was shown as having been elected in form No. IX – Held, order countermanding the election of respondent No.5 was clearly illegal – Contention that respondent No.5 acquiesced would not avail against the statutory provisions. Paramjit Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 343 (P&H).
Death of landlord
Rent Act (Haryana) -- Eviction petition – Conversion of petition u/s 13 to 13-A -- Landlord was serving in the Armed Forces died -- By application Lr’s had given up all other grounds and had prayed for treating the ejectment application under the provisions of section 13-A of the Act – Held, no prejudice has been caused to the tenant as in view of the proviso to section 13-A of the Act, the respondents could have filed an independent petition in their own right for eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises being dependent of landlord. Surinder Kumar v. Smt. Leela Sharma and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 318 (P&H).
Declaration of result
Countermanding of -- Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 – Respondent No.5 was declared as elected unopposed on 19.5.2008 – On written complaint, election of the Gram Panchayat fixed for 26.5.2008 was countermanded – Thereafter elections were directed to be held on 22.6.2008 -- Respondent No.5 neither challenged the order countermanding the election nor filed nomination for the said election nor challenged the declaration of the result of petitioner No.1 as having been elected -- However, the Deputy Commissioner vide letter, stated that who had filed their nomination papers earlier were to be elected as having been declared elected unopposed -- Consequently the name of respondent No.5 was shown as having been elected in form No. IX – Held, order countermanding the election of respondent No.5 was clearly illegal – Contention that respondent No.5 acquiesced would not avail against the statutory provisions. Paramjit Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 343 (P&H).
Delay in challenge to Mutation entries
Mutation was sanctioned in favour of the gram panchayat way back in 1964 -- If petitioners did not challenge any entry for long i.e. for more than 46 years, now they shall be debarred from challenging the same in view of principle of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel -- Long standing entries have strong presumption of their correctness unless proved by cogent evidence otherwise. Dharambir and another v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 265 (P&H).
Discrimination
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Acquisition of land – Challenge to –Vacant land of TDI was not included in the acquisition, for which either CLU was applied but not granted till the date of notification u/s 6 of the Act and in three instances CLU was applied for after the issuance of notification u/s 6 of the Act – Petitioner’s claim is much better than that of TDI for the reason that they had already obtained the necessary sanctions and approval from the Competent Authority for constructing and occupying their premises -- This itself is a good ground for quashing the notification issued u/s 6 of the Act. Surinder Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 277 (P&H DB).
Disqualification
Appointment of Lambardar – Petitioner did not intimate the authorities about the death of his father, who was the earlier Lambardar -- Conduct of the petitioner is certainly despicable insomuch as he continued to collect land revenue and continued to perform the duties of Lambardar, without any legal authority to do the same -- In such circumstances, a person like the petitioner, if allowed to be appointed as Lambardar, would not make a good choice. Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 310 (P&H).
Punjab Panchayat matters -- Panch of village -- Illegal possession of Gram Panchayat land – Possessing land of the Gram Panchayat illegally is a disqualification in section 208 (i)(k) of the Act 9 of 1994 which is conspicuously absent in Section 11 of Act No.19 of 1994 – Since Act No.9 of 1994 is later in time, therefore, the provision of Act No. 9 of 1994, which are not consistent with the provisions of Act of 19 of 1994 would not be applicable. Balbir Singh v. Karnail Singh & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 255 (P&H).
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction 1949 (III of 1949)
Section 13 – Eviction of tenant – Stay of – Mesne profit -- Landlord is entitled to the payment of mesne profits as assessed by Court after passing of the eviction order till its possession is handed over to the landlord -- Mesne profits of the demised premises assessed and made payable with effect from the date on which the High Court admitted the revision petition and had stayed the dispossession of the tenant. M/s Bird Travels (P) Ltd. v. Smt. Amarjit Kaur and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 313 (P&H).
Section 13 (3)(a)(i)(b) -- Bonafide need -- Landlord is the best judge of his needs and the tenant cannot dictate him regarding his suitability of the premises – Simply because, at one point of time, the landlord was planning to let out his residential portion to some bank will not dis-entitle him to seek ejectment on the ground of personal necessity. Jagdish Kaur v. Sat Pal Madan, 2012(1) L.A.R. 240 (P&H).
Section 13 (3)(a)(i)(b), 15(5) -- Bonafide need – Revisional Jurisdiction -- Whether demised premises are required by the landlord for his personal need is essentially a question of fact – Concurrent finding against the tenant, High Court in its revisional jurisdiction will not substitute its opinion with the findings of the courts below only because another view is possible. Jagdish Kaur v. Sat Pal Madan, 2012(1) L.A.R. 240 (P&H).
Section 13 (3)(a)(i)(b) -- Bonafide need -- Landlord is the best judge of his own needs. Tarsem Chand v. Gurdial Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 253 (P&H).
Section 13 (3)(2)(i) – Arrears of rent – Assessment of provisional rent – Non-tendering of -- Tenant failed to deposit the provisionally assessed rent on the due date -- Order of ejectment has to follow and nothing more is required to be done and the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction at all to extend time. Mrs. Birinder Khullar’s case 2011 (1) RCR (Rent) 307 & Rakesh Wadhawan’s case AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2004, relied. Kundan Singh v. Smt. Roop Rani and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 262 (P&H).
Section 13 (2)(ii)(b) -- Change of user -- Admitting the change of user the tenant took defence that the same had been done with the consent and permission of the landlord – Tenant failed to adduce any evidence on record – Written consent of landlord is required, even the knowledge of the landlord of the change of user, may be even from the very inception of the tenancy, would not absolve the tenant for liability for eviction on that ground – Even long user of the changed business does not amount to consent of the landlord to avoid eviction under the Rent Act – Eviction order upheld. Dhanpati’s case 1988 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 163 (P&H) & K.R. Verma’s case 2006(2) L.A.R. 4 relied. Rakesh Kumar v. Darshan Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 271 (P&H).
Section 13 (3)(a)(i)(a) -- Change of user -- Bonafide need -- There must be first a requirement by the landlord which means that it is not a mere whim or a fanciful desire by him, further such requirement must be bona fide which is intended to avoid the mere wish or desire -- Bona fide requirement must be in praesenti and must be manifested in actual need which would evidence the court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire. Rakesh Kumar v. Darshan Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 271 (P&H).
Section 13 (3)(a)(i)(a) – Bonafide need of sons -- Petitioner is to settle his sons in business and has also been proved on file that he has got no other such shop available to him -- Simply because they were doing tempo business does not mean that they were precluded from starting their own independent business -- Law does not expect from the landlord to remain idle and to face starvation during the pendency of the petition. Rakesh Kumar v. Darshan Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 271 (P&H).
Section 13 (3)(a)(i)(a) – Bonafide need – Suitability of accommodation -- Tenant is no one to dictate his terms to the landlord in the matter of bona fide requirement with regard to suitability of the accommodation. Rakesh Kumar v. Darshan Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 271 (P&H).
Section 13 (3)(a)(i)(a) – Bonafide need of sons -- Shop in dispute is required by landlord for starting business of sons -- Fact that the sons of the landlord were taking training in some other business or were doing some business will not disentitle them from doing their own business of any nature in the shop in dispute. Rakesh Kumar v. Darshan Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 271 (P&H).
Section 13(3)(a)(i)(c) – Bonafide need – Vacation of building – Sufficient cause -- Landlord closed his tractor business in the year 2001, whereas he started his new business only in the year 2004 meaning thereby landlord has no idea in the year 2001 that he will be starting his new business – Held, it cannot be said that the landlord had vacated the premises in his occupation after commencement of the Act without sufficient cause. Ramesh Gupta v. Ashok Kumar Jain, 2012(1) L.A.R. 289 (P&H).
Section 13(3)(a)(i)(c) – Bonafide need – Evidence show that other shops are the ownership of Trust and not the ownership of landlord – Tenant failed to point out any other commercial property or shop which is owned by the landlord -- Bonafide requirement of the shop in dispute of the landlord to set up his office stands proved and no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Authorities below – Eviction order upheld. Ramesh Gupta v. Ashok Kumar Jain, 2012(1) L.A.R. 289 (P&H).
Section 13-B, 18-A – NRI landlord – Leave to defend – Eviction -- Where u/s 13-B of the Act, leave is refused to the tenant to defend the proceedings brought by the N.R.I. landlord, eviction of the tenant has to be ordered as an automatic consequence. Anwar Ali v. Gian Kaur, 2012(1) L.A.R. 306 (P&H Full Bench).
Ejectment application
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Ejectment application by the Gram Panchayat through its Sarpanch with the averment that the then Sarpanch was duly authorised by the Gram Panchayat to file the ejectment application -- Photo-copy of the resolution is on record -- Merely because the subsequent Sarpanch, while appearing before the Collector, had stated that he has not brought the original copy of the resolution and cannot say whether the photo-copy is attested or not, it cannot be inferred that the earlier Sarpanch was not authorised to file the ejectment application. Tarsem Singh v. Director Rural Development and Panchayat (Punjab) Exercising the powers of Commissioner, and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 298 (P&H DB).
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Power of Sarpanch – Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat is fully competent to maintain the ejectment application u/s Section 7 of the Act. Tarsem Singh v. Director Rural Development and Panchayat (Punjab) Exercising the powers of Commissioner, and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 298 (P&H DB).
Ejectment petition
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Title dispute -- In reply to the application u/s 7 of the Act, vaguely it has been stated that the land in dispute is not shamilat deh and does not vest in the Gram Panchayat -- Since the petitioner could not make out a prima facie case, the Collector have not directed him to raise the question of title by filing the title suit u/s 11 of the Act -- Even the petitioner was at liberty to file the title suit which he did not file – Contention that once he had raised the question of title, the Collector was bound to decide the same after framing the issues and recording a finding on the issue of question of title, is not tenable. Tarsem Singh v. Director Rural Development and Panchayat (Punjab) Exercising the powers of Commissioner, and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 298 (P&H DB).
Election of Panch
Challenge to -- At the time of filing of nomination papers. N.O.C. issued by B.D.P.O. was attached alongwith papers by the appellant and the same was accepted by the competent authority but at that time no objection was raised regarding holding of Panchayat land unauthorizedly which was the right stage and now it can not lie on respondent’s mouth to take such objection. Balbir Singh v. Karnail Singh & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 255 (P&H).
Election petition through Advocate
Punjab State Election Commission Act -- Election petition is not presented by the candidate/appellant himself rather it has been filed through his advocate -- If the election petition is not filed by the candidate himself, then there is no alternative left with the Election Tribunal but to dismiss the election petition -- If any objection is not taken by the returned candidate even in the written statement about the non-compliance of Section 76(1) of the Act, it would not deemed to be a waiver on his part -- Election petition dismissed. Suresh Kumar Singla v. Election Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 363 (P&H).
Encroachment
Plaintiffs claims themselves to be owners in possession -- Onus of proof -- Irrespective of the plea as set up by the defendant, the plaintiff have to stand on their own legs. Rattan Devi and others v. Municipal Committee, Loharu and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 304 (P&H).
Eviction
Rent Act (Punjab) -- NRI landlord – Leave to defend – Where u/s 13-B of the Act, leave is refused to the tenant to defend the proceedings brought by the N.R.I. landlord, eviction of the tenant has to be ordered as an automatic consequence. Anwar Ali v. Gian Kaur, 2012(1) L.A.R. 306 (P&H Full Bench).
Eviction of tenant
Rent Act -- Stay of eviction – Mesne profit -- Landlord is entitled to the payment of mesne profits as assessed by Court after passing of the eviction order till its possession is handed over to the landlord -- Mesne profits of the demised premises assessed and made payable with effect from the date on which the High Court admitted the revision petition and had stayed the dispossession of the tenant. M/s Bird Travels (P) Ltd. v. Smt. Amarjit Kaur and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 313 (P&H).
Eviction petition
Rent Act (Haryana) -- Death of landlord – Conversion of petition u/s 13 to 13-A -- Landlord was serving in the Armed Forces died -- By application Lr’s had given up all other grounds and had prayed for treating the ejectment application under the provisions of section 13-A of the Act – Held, no prejudice has been caused to the tenant as in view of the proviso to section 13-A of the Act, the respondents could have filed an independent petition in their own right for eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises being dependent of landlord. Surinder Kumar v. Smt. Leela Sharma and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 318 (P&H).
FIR
Municipal area – Land in dispute has already been included in the limits of MC, by virtue of notifications -- Once there is projected violation of any provision of MC Act, then, the same can only be dealt with the provisions of the said Act and no FIR can possibly be registered u/s 6 & 7 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963. Gurdip Singh v. The State of Haryana & another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 249 (P&H).
Guest house
Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 -- Shop cum flat – Misuse of premises – Conversion of use of building -- Sites allotted for use as (SCFs), whereas petitioner are using F.F. and S.F. as guest houses/lodges, which is not permissible -- Stand of the administration that until and unless the petitioners seek firstly conversion for use as for the office purposes and secondly to seek permission to use the office portion for commercial purpose i.e. for tourist lodges and guest houses, the petitioners are violating the provisions of the Act and the building is liable to be resumed – Writ petition challenging to notices served u/s 8A of the 1952 Act dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to seek conversion of the use of buildings in terms of the scheme framed under the Act. Gurcharan Singh v. Union Territory Chandigarh & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 330 (P&H DB).
Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (24 of 1973)
Section 4(1) – Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (41 of 1963), Section 6,7, 12 -- Municipal area -- Land in dispute has already been included in the limits of MC, by virtue of notifications -- Once there is projected violation of any provision of MC Act, then, the same can only be dealt with the provisions of the said Act and no FIR can possibly be registered u/s 6 & 7 of the Controlled Areas Act. Pritam Singh’s case 1995(3) PLR 762 & Satpal’s case 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 331 relied. Gurdip Singh v. The State of Haryana & another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 249 (P&H).
Section 4(1) – Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (41 of 1963), Section 6,7, 12 –
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973)
Section 13, 13-A – Eviction petition – Death of landlord – Conversion of petition u/s 13 to 13-A -- Landlord was serving in the Armed Forces died -- By application Lr’s had given up all other grounds and had prayed for treating the ejectment application under the provisions of section 13-A of the Act – Held, no prejudice has been caused to the tenant as in view of the proviso to section 13-A of the Act, the respondents could have filed an independent petition in their own right for eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises being dependent of landlord. Surinder Kumar v. Smt. Leela Sharma and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 318 (P&H).
Section 13(3)(a)(i), 13-A – Petition u/s 13-A -- Bonafide need – Contention that respondents are in occupation and possession of another adjoining shop, to the shop in dispute which is lying vacant disentitles the respondents to file and maintain the present ejectment application in view of the provisions of section 13 (3)(a) (i) of the Act, thus, no benefit could have been granted to them under section 13-A of the Act – Contention rejected. M/s Sant Ram Das Raj Kalka’s case AIR 1963 Punjab 1 (P&H Full Bench) & Ramesh Kumar’s case 1987(1) RCR (Rent) 101 relied. Surinder Kumar v. Smt. Leela Sharma and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 318 (P&H).
House Tax
Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 -- Section 93(c) is applicable only where the rental value cannot be worked out -- Where the property is situated, the provisions of the Rent Act are applicable, there was no bar to assess the rental value -- Matter is remanded back to the Municipal Corporation, to determine the house tax value under Section 93(b). M/s Dwarka Cheap Store v. The Municipal Corporation and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 350 (P&H).
Illegal possession of Gram Panchayat land
Punjab Panchayat matters -- Panch of village -- Disqualification -- Possessing land of the Gram Panchayat illegally is a disqualification in section 208 (i)(k) of the Act 9 of 1994 which is conspicuously absent in Section 11 of Act No.19 of 1994 – Since Act No.9 of 1994 is later in time, therefore, the provision of Act No. 9 of 1994, which are not consistent with the provisions of Act of 19 of 1994 would not be applicable. Som Lal’s case 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 760, relied. Balbir Singh v. Karnail Singh & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 255 (P&H).
Judicial review
Constitution enshrines and guarantees rule of law and the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is empowered to ensure that each and every authority of the State, including the government acts bonafide and within the limits of its power -- Where there is arbitrariness in the state action or such action is to help some individual at the cost and peril of other similarly situated person(s) resulting in discrimination leading to depriving him/them of their rights -- Article 14 steps in and judicial review strikes such an action to be not in accordance with law and, thus, has to be struck down. Surinder Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 277 (P&H DB).
Jurisdiction of civil court
Shamilat deh -- Question of title – Civil court would have no jurisdiction to decide the question of title pertaining to land which is shamlat deh and vests with the Panchayat. Yudhvir Singh v. Gram Panchayat Halla and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 259 (P&H).
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Mixed land use – Discrimination -- Vacant land of TDI was not included in the acquisition, for which either CLU was applied but not granted till the date of notification u/s 6 of the Act and in three instances CLU was applied for after the issuance of notification u/s 6 of the Act – Petitioner’s claim is much better than that of TDI for the reason that they had already obtained the necessary sanctions and approval from the Competent Authority for constructing and occupying their premises -- This itself is a good ground for quashing the notification issued u/s 6 of the Act. Surinder Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 277 (P&H DB).
Section 3, 4,6 – Public purpose – Acquisition of land – Land for town or rural planning -- Challenge to – As per Section 3 of the Act, public purpose has been defined to include the provision of land for town or rural planning which obviously has to be prior to issuance of a notification u/s 4 of the Act -- Master Plan was notified after issuance of notification u/s 4 -- Unless there is proper planning for acquisition of land by the Appropriate Government, it would not pass the test of public purpose for which only the land can be acquired -- Notifications acquiring land cannot be upheld. Surinder Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 277 (P&H DB).
Section 4, 6 – Acquisition of land – Release of 90 % land – Other landholder’s right -- At the time of awards, substantial area was released being thickly constructed – 90% area has been recommended for exclusion from acquisition -- Public purpose of acquiring the land seems to have been defeated -- Whereas the land/construction belonging to the petitioners is sought to be acquired -- Such an action would smacks of arbitrariness and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution -- Notifications u/s 4 and 6 of the Act as well as the awards subsequently passed, set aside. Satish Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 324 (P&H DB).
Section 4,6 – Acquisition of land – Challenge to – Mixed land use – Discrimination -- Vacant land of TDI was not included in the acquisition, for which either CLU was applied but not granted till the date of notification u/s 6 of the Act and in three instances CLU was applied for after the issuance of notification u/s 6 of the Act – Petitioner’s claim is much better than that of TDI for the reason that they had already obtained the necessary sanctions and approval from the Competent Authority for constructing and occupying their premises -- This itself is a good ground for quashing the notification issued u/s 6 of the Act. Surinder Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 277 (P&H DB).
Land for town or rural planning
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Acquisition of land – Challenge to -- As per Section 3 of the Act, public purpose has been defined to include the provision of land for town or rural planning which obviously has to be prior to issuance of a notification u/s 4 of the Act -- Master Plan was notified after issuance of notification u/s 4 -- Unless there is proper planning for acquisition of land by the Appropriate Government, it would not pass the test of public purpose for which only the land can be acquired -- Notifications acquiring land cannot be upheld. Surinder Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 277 (P&H DB).
Leave to defend
Rent Act (Punjab) -- NRI landlord – Eviction -- Where u/s 13-B of the Act, leave is refused to the tenant to defend the proceedings brought by the N.R.I. landlord, eviction of the tenant has to be ordered as an automatic consequence. Anwar Ali v. Gian Kaur, 2012(1) L.A.R. 306 (P&H Full Bench).
Maintainability of Election petition through Advocate
Punjab State Election Commission Act -- Election petition is not presented by the candidate/appellant himself rather it has been filed through his advocate -- If the election petition is not filed by the candidate himself, then there is no alternative left with the Election Tribunal but to dismiss the election petition -- If any objection is not taken by the returned candidate even in the written statement about the non-compliance of Section 76(1) of the Act, it would not deemed to be a waiver on his part -- Election petition dismissed. Suresh Kumar Singla v. Election Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 363 (P&H).
Member Panchayat
Appointment of Lambardar – Punjab Land Revenue Rules -- Qualification -- A Member Panchayat is required to operate within the village/estate and so is the Lambardar -- Rule 15 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules does not provide for any disability to be appointed as Lambardar, in case such a person is a Member Panchayat, rather rule 15 indicates that it would be a qualification if the person has personal influence, character and ability -- A Panch of the village indicates better qualification, in terms of Rule 15 (d) and (e). Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 310 (P&H).
Mesne profit
Rent Act -- Eviction of tenant – Stay of – Landlord is entitled to the payment of mesne profits as assessed by Court after passing of the eviction order till its possession is handed over to the landlord -- Mesne profits of the demised premises assessed and made payable with effect from the date on which the High Court admitted the revision petition and had stayed the dispossession of the tenant. M/s Bird Travels (P) Ltd. v. Smt. Amarjit Kaur and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 313 (P&H).
Misuse of premises
Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 -- Shop cum flat – Tourist lodge/Guest house – Conversion of use of building -- Sites allotted for use as (SCFs), whereas petitioner are using F.F. and S.F. as guest houses/lodges, which is not permissible -- Stand of the administration that until and unless the petitioners seek firstly conversion for use as for the office purposes and secondly to seek permission to use the office portion for commercial purpose i.e. for tourist lodges and guest houses, the petitioners are violating the provisions of the Act and the building is liable to be resumed – Writ petition challenging to notices served u/s 8A of the 1952 Act dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to seek conversion of the use of buildings in terms of the scheme framed under the Act. Gurcharan Singh v. Union Territory Chandigarh & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 330 (P&H DB).
Mixed land use
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Acquisition of land – Challenge to – Discrimination -- Vacant land of TDI was not included in the acquisition, for which either CLU was applied but not granted till the date of notification u/s 6 of the Act and in three instances CLU was applied for after the issuance of notification u/s 6 of the Act – Petitioner’s claim is much better than that of TDI for the reason that they had already obtained the necessary sanctions and approval from the Competent Authority for constructing and occupying their premises -- This itself is a good ground for quashing the notification issued u/s 6 of the Act. Surinder Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 277 (P&H DB).
Municipal area
FIR -- Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 -- Land in dispute has already been included in the limits of MC, by virtue of notifications -- Once there is projected violation of any provision of MC Act, then, the same can only be dealt with the provisions of the said Act and no FIR can possibly be registered u/s 6 & 7 of the Controlled Areas Act. Gurdip Singh v. The State of Haryana & another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 249 (P&H).
Mutation entries
Delay in challenge – Effect of -- Mutation was sanctioned in favour of the gram panchayat way back in 1964 -- If petitioners did not challenge any entry for long i.e. for more than 46 years, now they shall be debarred from challenging the same in view of principle of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel -- Long standing entries have strong presumption of their correctness unless proved by cogent evidence otherwise. Dharambir and another v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 265 (P&H).
Mutation does not confer any title. Mohinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 238 (P&H).
Mutation proceedings
Civil suit -- Observation made in the summary proceedings of the mutation by the revenue authorities starting from the Assistant Collector Ist Grade upto the Financial Commissioner, shall not prejudice the mind of the Civil Court and the Civil Court shall independently decide the suit in accordance with law. Mohinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 238 (P&H).
Res-judicata -- Finding recorded during the mutation proceedings while sanctioning or rejecting the same in favour of either of the parties in a suit for declaration of title or possession on the basis of sale deed etc., does not operate as res judicata. Mohinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 238 (P&H).
Natural justice
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Appeal – Stay of impugned order – Speaking order – Appellate Authority has the power to stay the order impugned -- No reason is required to be given while granting the stay of the order – No requirement of the principles of natural justice that even such interim order is to be speaking order. Hazara Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 247 (P&H DB).
Nomination is over
Punjab State Election Commission Act -- Amendment in electoral roll – There cannot be any amendment by way of transposition or deletion in the electoral roll of a constituency after the date of making nominations is over. Suresh Kumar Singla v. Election Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 363 (P&H).
Non-tendering of Arrears of rent
Rent Act -- Tenant failed to deposit the provisionally assessed rent on the due date -- Order of ejectment has to follow and nothing more is required to be done and the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction at all to extend time. Kundan Singh v. Smt. Roop Rani and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 262 (P&H).
NRI landlord
Rent Act (Punjab) -- Leave to defend – Eviction -- Where u/s 13-B of the Act, leave is refused to the tenant to defend the proceedings brought by the N.R.I. landlord, eviction of the tenant has to be ordered as an automatic consequence. Anwar Ali v. Gian Kaur, 2012(1) L.A.R. 306 (P&H Full Bench).
Panch of village
Punjab Panchayat matters -- Illegal possession of Gram Panchayat land – Disqualification -- Possessing land of the Gram Panchayat illegally is a disqualification in section 208 (i)(k) of the Act 9 of 1994 which is conspicuously absent in Section 11 of Act No.19 of 1994 – Since Act No.9 of 1994 is later in time, therefore, the provision of Act No. 9 of 1994, which are not consistent with the provisions of Act of 19 of 1994 would not be applicable. Som Lal’s case 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 760, relied. Balbir Singh v. Karnail Singh & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 255 (P&H).
Petition u/s 13-A
Rent Act (Haryana) -- Bonafide need – Contention that respondents are in occupation and possession of another adjoining shop, to the shop in dispute which is lying vacant disentitles the respondents to file and maintain the present ejectment application in view of the provisions of section 13 (3)(a) (i) of the Act, thus, no benefit could have been granted to them under section 13-A of the Act – Contention rejected. Surinder Kumar v. Smt. Leela Sharma and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 318 (P&H).
Public purpose
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Acquisition of land – Land for town or rural planning -- Challenge to – As per Section 3 of the Act, public purpose has been defined to include the provision of land for town or rural planning which obviously has to be prior to issuance of a notification u/s 4 of the Act -- Master Plan was notified after issuance of notification u/s 4 -- Unless there is proper planning for acquisition of land by the Appropriate Government, it would not pass the test of public purpose for which only the land can be acquired -- Notifications acquiring land cannot be upheld. Surinder Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 277 (P&H DB).
Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887)
Section 13,15,20 – Appointment of Lambardar -- Choice of Collector – Interference in -- Choice of the Collector is to be respected, in so much as Collector is a Revenue Officer in the District who is required to take work from the Lambardar, in context of provisions of Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. Hoshiar Chand v. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 268 (P&H).
Section 34 – Mutation proceedings – Mutation does not confer any title. Mohinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 238 (P&H).
Section 34 – Mutation proceedings – Res-judicata -- Finding recorded during the mutation proceedings while sanctioning or rejecting the same in favour of either of the parties in a suit for declaration of title or possession on the basis of sale deed etc., does not operate as res judicata. Mohinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 238 (P&H).
Section 34 – Mutation proceedings – Civil suit -- Observation made in the summary proceedings of the mutation by the revenue authorities starting from the Assistant Collector Ist Grade upto the Financial Commissioner, shall not prejudice the mind of the Civil Court and the Civil Court shall independently decide the suit in accordance with law. Mohinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 238 (P&H).
Section 34, 44 -- Mutation entries – Delay in challenge – Effect of -- Mutation was sanctioned in favour of the gram panchayat way back in 1964 -- If petitioners did not challenge any entry for long i.e. for more than 46 years, now they shall be debarred from challenging the same in view of principle of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel -- Long standing entries have strong presumption of their correctness unless proved by cogent evidence otherwise. Dharambir and another v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 265 (P&H).
Punjab Land Revenue Rules
Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Comparative merits -- Petitioner is more educated being matriculate and a retired teacher, private respondent is 7th pass -- When applications were invited for appointment of Lambardar, the petitioner owned 19 kanals of land whereas respondent owned only 4 kanals and 10 marlas of land -- Merit amongst the candidates is required to be seen at the point in time when applications are to be filled -- Subsequent addition of land would not be a good ground to hold the order passed by the Collector to be perverse – Held, petitioner has an edge over the private respondent. Hoshiar Chand v. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 268 (P&H).
Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Qualification -- Collector, being the appointing authority, was required to consider the relative merits, in the context of educational qualification, for discharge of duties by the incumbent Lambardar, as provided under Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 310 (P&H).
Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Disqualification -- Petitioner did not intimate the authorities about the death of his father, who was the earlier Lambardar -- Conduct of the petitioner is certainly despicable insomuch as he continued to collect land revenue and continued to perform the duties of Lambardar, without any legal authority to do the same -- In such circumstances, a person like the petitioner, if allowed to be appointed as Lambardar, would not make a good choice. Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 310 (P&H).
Rule 15 (For Punjab)-- Appointment of Lambardar – Qualification -- Member Panchayat – Eligibility of -- A Member Panchayat is required to operate within the village/estate and so is the Lambardar -- Rule 15 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules does not provide for any disability to be appointed as Lambardar, in case such a person is a Member Panchayat, rather rule 15 indicates that it would be a qualification if the person has personal influence, character and ability -- A Panch of the village indicates better qualification, in terms of Rule 15 (d) and (e). Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 310 (P&H).
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (3 of 1911)
Section 8 – Constitution of India, Article 243T – Reservation of seats -- Section 8 of the Act is pari-materia with the provisions of Article 243T -- Reservation of seats for women, Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes alone is mandatory -- How such seats are rotated is left to the State Government with play in joints as there may be situations, where rotation of all the seats may not be feasible keeping in view the population of the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes being concentrated in a pocket of a Municipality. Inderjit v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 353 (P&H DB).
Section 8 – Constitution of India, Article 243T – Reservation of seats -- Intention of Article 243T of the Constitution and Section 8 of the Act is to provide reservation for women, Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes in a Municipality – As to which seats are reserved for them, is a matter of procedure and is directory – Therefore, while rotating the wards, it is not necessary for the State Government to rotate the wards with exactitude -- State has to be given play in knees joints to adjust according to the requirements keeping in view the population of the Backward Classes/Scheduled Castes voters. Inderjit v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 353 (P&H DB).
Section 8(1)(b) – Reservation of seats – Rotation in – No merit in the argument that the power conferred on the State Government to notify the seats to be reserved for women including the women belonging to the Scheduled Castes before every General Elections means that such provision is arbitrary. Inderjit v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 353 (P&H DB).
Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (42 of 1976)
Section 93(b), 93(c) – House Tax – Assessment of – Section 93(c) is applicable only where the rental value cannot be worked out -- Where the property is situated, the provisions of the Rent Act are applicable, there was no bar to assess the rental value -- Matter is remanded back to the Municipal Corporation, to determine the house tax value under Section 93(b). M/s Dwarka Cheap Store v. The Municipal Corporation and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 350 (P&H).
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994)
Section 16, 20 -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7(1) – Ejectment application – Power of Sarpanch – Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat is fully competent to maintain the ejectment application u/s Section 7 of the Act. Tarsem Singh v. Director Rural Development and Panchayat (Punjab) Exercising the powers of Commissioner, and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 298 (P&H DB).
Section 208(i)(k) -- Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 11 -- Panch of village -- Illegal possession of Gram Panchayat land – Disqualification -- Possessing land of the Gram Panchayat illegally is a disqualification in section 208 (i)(k) of the Act 9 of 1994 which is conspicuously absent in Section 11 of Act No.19 of 1994 – Since Act No.9 of 1994 is later in time, therefore, the provision of Act No. 9 of 1994, which are not consistent with the provisions of Act of 19 of 1994 would not be applicable. Som Lal’s case 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 760, relied. Balbir Singh v. Karnail Singh & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 255 (P&H).
Section 208(i)(k) -- Election of Panch – Challenge to -- At the time of filing of nomination papers. N.O.C. issued by B.D.P.O. was attached alongwith papers by the appellant and the same was accepted by the competent authority but at that time no objection was raised regarding holding of Panchayat land unauthorizedly which was the right stage and now it can not lie on respondent’s mouth to take such objection. Balbir Singh v. Karnail Singh & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 255 (P&H).
Section 208(i)(k) -- Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 11 –
Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (41 of 1963)
Section 6,7, 12 -- Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (24 of 1973), Section 4(1) – Municipal area -- Land in dispute has already been included in the limits of MC, by virtue of notifications -- Once there is projected violation of any provision of MC Act, then, the same can only be dealt with the provisions of the said Act and no FIR can possibly be registered u/s 6 & 7 of the Controlled Areas Act. Pritam Singh’s case 1995(3) PLR 762 & Satpal’s case 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 331 relied. Gurdip Singh v. The State of Haryana & another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 249 (P&H).
Section 6,7, 12 – FIR – Quashing of -- FIR does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence u/s 6 & 7 of the Controlled Areas Act -- Allegations contained in the FIR are as vague as anything -- No allegation or material, much less cogent, is forth coming on record, even to suggest remotely, as to when, how and in what manner, the petitioner has violated the provisions of sections 6 & 7 of the Controlled Areas Act, which would entail a criminal action under section 12 of the said Act – Lodging of such FIR amounts to abuse of process of law against the petitioner and deserves to be quashed. Gurdip Singh v. The State of Haryana & another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 249 (P&H).
Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994)
Section 11 -- Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 208(i)(k) -- Panch of village -- Illegal possession of Gram Panchayat land – Disqualification -- Possessing land of the Gram Panchayat illegally is a disqualification in section 208 (i)(k) of the Act 9 of 1994 which is conspicuously absent in Section 11 of Act No.19 of 1994 – Since Act No.9 of 1994 is later in time, therefore, the provision of Act No. 9 of 1994, which are not consistent with the provisions of Act of 19 of 1994 would not be applicable. Som Lal’s case 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 760, relied. Balbir Singh v. Karnail Singh & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 255 (P&H).
Section 69, 74, 76 – Declaration of result -- Countermanding of -- Respondent No.5 was declared as elected unopposed on 19.5.2008 – On written complaint, election of the Gram Panchayat fixed for 26.5.2008 was countermanded – Thereafter elections were directed to be held on 22.6.2008 -- Respondent No.5 neither challenged the order countermanding the election nor filed nomination for the said election nor challenged the declaration of the result of petitioner No.1 as having been elected -- However, the Deputy Commissioner vide letter, stated that who had filed their nomination papers earlier were to be elected as having been declared elected unopposed -- Consequently the name of respondent No.5 was shown as having been elected in form No. IX – Held, order countermanding the election of respondent No.5 was clearly illegal – Contention that respondent No.5 acquiesced would not avail against the statutory provisions -- However, the petitioners may challenge the said election within 30 days. Rajpreet's case 2010(4) PLR 254 relied. Paramjit Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 343 (P&H).
Section 32(3) – Amendment in electoral roll – Nomination is over – Effect of -- There cannot be any amendment by way of transposition or deletion in the electoral roll of a constituency after the date of making nominations is over. Suresh Kumar Singla v. Election Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 363 (P&H).
Section 76, 80 – Election petition through Advocate – Maintainability of -- Election petition is not presented by the candidate/appellant himself rather it has been filed through his advocate -- If the election petition is not filed by the candidate himself, then there is no alternative left with the Election Tribunal but to dismiss the election petition -- If any objection is not taken by the returned candidate even in the written statement about the non-compliance of Section 76(1) of the Act, it would not deemed to be a waiver on his part -- Election petition dismissed. Gurlal Singh’s case 2010(5) R.C.R. (Civil) 474 relied. Suresh Kumar Singla v. Election Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 363 (P&H).
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961)
Section 11 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 151 – Applicability of CPC – CPC is not applicable to the proceedings under the Act, but the principles of CPC, which are in consonance with the justice, equity and good conscience, can very well be extended by the Authorities under the Act. Hazara Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 247 (P&H DB).
Section 11(2) – Appeal – Stay of impugned order – Speaking order – Natural justice -- Appellate Authority has the power to stay the order impugned -- No reason is required to be given while granting the stay of the order – No requirement of the principles of natural justice that even such interim order is to be speaking order. Hazara Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 247 (P&H DB).
Section 11 – Question of title -- Adverse possession -- Occupants cannot claim title over the Panchayat property u/s 11 of the Act being in adverse possession. Hazara Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 247 (P&H DB).
Section 13 – Shamilat deh -- Question of title – Jurisdiction of civil court – Civil court would have no jurisdiction to decide the question of title pertaining to land which is shamlat deh and vests with the Panchayat. Yudhvir Singh v. Gram Panchayat Halla and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 259 (P&H).
Section 7, 11 – Ejectment petition – Title dispute -- In reply to the application u/s 7 of the Act, vaguely it has been stated that the land in dispute is not shamilat deh and does not vest in the Gram Panchayat -- Since the petitioner could not make out a prima facie case, the Collector have not directed him to raise the question of title by filing the title suit u/s 11 of the Act -- Even the petitioner was at liberty to file the title suit which he did not file – Contention that once he had raised the question of title, the Collector was bound to decide the same after framing the issues and recording a finding on the issue of question of title, is not tenable. Tarsem Singh v. Director Rural Development and Panchayat (Punjab) Exercising the powers of Commissioner, and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 298 (P&H DB).
Section 7(1) – Ejectment application -- Ejectment application by the Gram Panchayat through its Sarpanch with the averment that the then Sarpanch was duly authorised by the Gram Panchayat to file the ejectment application -- Photo-copy of the resolution is on record -- Merely because the subsequent Sarpanch, while appearing before the Collector, had stated that he has not brought the original copy of the resolution and cannot say whether the photo-copy is attested or not, it cannot be inferred that the earlier Sarpanch was not authorised to file the ejectment application. Tarsem Singh v. Director Rural Development and Panchayat (Punjab) Exercising the powers of Commissioner, and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 298 (P&H DB).
Section 7(1) – Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 16, 20 -- Ejectment application – Power of Sarpanch – Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat is fully competent to maintain the ejectment application u/s Section 7 of the Act. Tarsem Singh v. Director Rural Development and Panchayat (Punjab) Exercising the powers of Commissioner, and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 298 (P&H DB).
Section 2(g)(5) -- Shamilat deh hasab rasad khewat -- In the revenue record, the land in dispute has been described as shamilat deh hasab rasad khewat – Held, such land vests in the Gram Panchayat if it is not covered by any of the exceptions provided under Section 2(g)(5)of the Act – Merely on the basis of possession, which is not prior to 26.1.1950 in the capacity of a proprietor of the shamilat, the petitioner cannot claim that the land in dispute does not fall under the definition of shamilat deh and does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Tarsem Singh v. Director Rural Development and Panchayat (Punjab) Exercising the powers of Commissioner, and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 298 (P&H DB).
Qualification
Appointment of Lambardar – Collector, being the appointing authority, was required to consider the relative merits, in the context of educational qualification, for discharge of duties by the incumbent Lambardar, as provided under Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 310 (P&H).
Appointment of Lambardar – Punjab Land Revenue Rules -- Member Panchayat – Eligibility of -- A Member Panchayat is required to operate within the village/estate and so is the Lambardar -- Rule 15 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules does not provide for any disability to be appointed as Lambardar, in case such a person is a Member Panchayat, rather rule 15 indicates that it would be a qualification if the person has personal influence, character and ability -- A Panch of the village indicates better qualification, in terms of Rule 15 (d) and (e). Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 310 (P&H).
Quashing of FIR
FIR does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence u/s 6 & 7 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 -- Allegations contained in the FIR are as vague as anything -- No allegation or material, much less cogent, is forth coming on record, even to suggest remotely, as to when, how and in what manner, the petitioner has violated the provisions of sections 6 & 7 of the Controlled Areas Act, which would entail a criminal action under section 12 of the said Act – Lodging of such FIR amounts to abuse of process of law against the petitioner and deserves to be quashed. Gurdip Singh v. The State of Haryana & another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 249 (P&H).
Question of title
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Adverse possession -- Occupants cannot claim title over the Panchayat property u/s 11 of the Act being in adverse possession. Hazara Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 247 (P&H DB).
Shamilat deh -- Jurisdiction of civil court – Civil court would have no jurisdiction to decide the question of title pertaining to land which is shamlat deh and vests with the Panchayat. Yudhvir Singh v. Gram Panchayat Halla and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 259 (P&H).
Release of 90 % land
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Acquisition of land – Other landholder’s right -- At the time of awards, substantial area was released being thickly constructed – 90% area has been recommended for exclusion from acquisition -- Public purpose of acquiring the land seems to have been defeated -- Whereas the land/construction belonging to the petitioners is sought to be acquired -- Such an action would smacks of arbitrariness and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution -- Notifications u/s 4 and 6 of the Act as well as the awards subsequently passed, set aside. Satish Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 324 (P&H DB).
Reservation of seats
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 -- Intention of Article 243T of the Constitution and Section 8 of the Act is to provide reservation for women, Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes in a Municipality – As to which seats are reserved for them, is a matter of procedure and is directory – Therefore, while rotating the wards, it is not necessary for the State Government to rotate the wards with exactitude -- State has to be given play in knees joints to adjust according to the requirements keeping in view the population of the Backward Classes/Scheduled Castes voters. Inderjit v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 353 (P&H DB).
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 -- No merit in the argument that the power conferred on the State Government to notify the seats to be reserved for women including the women belonging to the Scheduled Castes before every General Elections means that such provision is arbitrary. Inderjit v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 353 (P&H DB).
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 -- Section 8 of the Act is pari-materia with the provisions of Article 243T -- Reservation of seats for women, Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes alone is mandatory -- How such seats are rotated is left to the State Government with play in joints as there may be situations, where rotation of all the seats may not be feasible keeping in view the population of the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes being concentrated in a pocket of a Municipality. Inderjit v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 353 (P&H DB).
Res-judicata
Mutation proceedings – Finding recorded during the mutation proceedings while sanctioning or rejecting the same in favour of either of the parties in a suit for declaration of title or possession on the basis of sale deed etc., does not operate as res judicata. Mohinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 238 (P&H).
Revisional Jurisdiction
Rent Act -- Bonafide need – Whether demised premises are required by the landlord for his personal need is essentially a question of fact – Concurrent finding against the tenant, High Court in its revisional jurisdiction will not substitute its opinion with the findings of the courts below only because another view is possible. Jagdish Kaur v. Sat Pal Madan, 2012(1) L.A.R. 240 (P&H).
Rotation in Reservation of seats
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 -- No merit in the argument that the power conferred on the State Government to notify the seats to be reserved for women including the women belonging to the Scheduled Castes before every General Elections means that such provision is arbitrary. Inderjit v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 353 (P&H DB).
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 -- Reservation of seats for women, Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes alone is mandatory -- How such seats are rotated is left to the State Government with play in joints as there may be situations, where rotation of all the seats may not be feasible keeping in view the population of the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes being concentrated in a pocket of a Municipality. Inderjit v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 353 (P&H DB).
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 -- While rotating the wards, it is not necessary for the State Government to rotate the wards with exactitude -- State has to be given play in knees joints to adjust according to the requirements keeping in view the population of the Backward Classes/Scheduled Castes voters. Inderjit v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 353 (P&H DB).
Shamilat deh
Question of title – Jurisdiction of civil court – Civil court would have no jurisdiction to decide the question of title pertaining to land which is shamlat deh and vests with the Panchayat. Yudhvir Singh v. Gram Panchayat Halla and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 259 (P&H).
Shamilat deh hasab rasad khewat
In the revenue record, the land in dispute has been described as shamilat deh hasab rasad khewat – Held, such land vests in the Gram Panchayat if it is not covered by any of the exceptions provided under Section 2(g)(5)of the Act – Merely on the basis of possession, which is not prior to 26.1.1950 in the capacity of a proprietor of the shamilat, the petitioner cannot claim that the land in dispute does not fall under the definition of shamilat deh and does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Tarsem Singh v. Director Rural Development and Panchayat (Punjab) Exercising the powers of Commissioner, and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 298 (P&H DB).
Shop cum flat
Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 -- Tourist lodge/Guest house – Misuse of premises – Conversion of use of building -- Sites allotted for use as (SCFs), whereas petitioner are using F.F. and S.F. as guest houses/lodges, which is not permissible -- Stand of the administration that until and unless the petitioners seek firstly conversion for use as for the office purposes and secondly to seek permission to use the office portion for commercial purpose i.e. for tourist lodges and guest houses, the petitioners are violating the provisions of the Act and the building is liable to be resumed – Writ petition challenging to notices served u/s 8A of the 1952 Act dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to seek conversion of the use of buildings in terms of the scheme framed under the Act. Gurcharan Singh v. Union Territory Chandigarh & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 330 (P&H DB).
Speaking order
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Appeal – Stay of impugned order – Natural justice -- Appellate Authority has the power to stay the order impugned -- No reason is required to be given while granting the stay of the order – No requirement of the principles of natural justice that even such interim order is to be speaking order. Hazara Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 247 (P&H DB).
Stay of Eviction of tenant
Rent Act -- Mesne profit -- Landlord is entitled to the payment of mesne profits as assessed by Court after passing of the eviction order till its possession is handed over to the landlord -- Mesne profits of the demised premises assessed and made payable with effect from the date on which the High Court admitted the revision petition and had stayed the dispossession of the tenant. M/s Bird Travels (P) Ltd. v. Smt. Amarjit Kaur and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 313 (P&H).
Stay of order in appeal
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Speaking order – Natural justice -- Appellate Authority has the power to stay the order impugned -- No reason is required to be given while granting the stay of the order – No requirement of the principles of natural justice that even such interim order is to be speaking order. Hazara Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 247 (P&H DB).
Sufficient cause
Rent Act -- Bonafide need – Vacation of building – Landlord closed his tractor business in the year 2001, whereas he started his new business only in the year 2004 meaning thereby landlord has no idea in the year 2001 that he will be starting his new business – Held, it cannot be said that the landlord had vacated the premises in his occupation after commencement of the Act without sufficient cause. Ramesh Gupta v. Ashok Kumar Jain, 2012(1) L.A.R. 289 (P&H).
Suitability of accommodation
Rent Act -- Bonafide need – Tenant is no one to dictate his terms to the landlord in the matter of bona fide requirement with regard to suitability of the accommodation. Rakesh Kumar v. Darshan Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 271 (P&H).
Title dispute
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Ejectment petition – In reply to the application u/s 7 of the Act, vaguely it has been stated that the land in dispute is not shamilat deh and does not vest in the Gram Panchayat -- Since the petitioner could not make out a prima facie case, the Collector have not directed him to raise the question of title by filing the title suit u/s 11 of the Act -- Even the petitioner was at liberty to file the title suit which he did not file – Contention that once he had raised the question of title, the Collector was bound to decide the same after framing the issues and recording a finding on the issue of question of title, is not tenable. Tarsem Singh v. Director Rural Development and Panchayat (Punjab) Exercising the powers of Commissioner, and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 298 (P&H DB).
Tourist lodge
Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 -- Shop cum flat – Misuse of premises – Conversion of use of building -- Sites allotted for use as (SCFs), whereas petitioner are using F.F. and S.F. as guest houses/lodges, which is not permissible -- Stand of the administration that until and unless the petitioners seek firstly conversion for use as for the office purposes and secondly to seek permission to use the office portion for commercial purpose i.e. for tourist lodges and guest houses, the petitioners are violating the provisions of the Act and the building is liable to be resumed – Writ petition challenging to notices served u/s 8A of the 1952 Act dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to seek conversion of the use of buildings in terms of the scheme framed under the Act. Gurcharan Singh v. Union Territory Chandigarh & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 330 (P&H DB).
Vacation of building
Rent Act -- Bonafide need – Sufficient cause -- Landlord closed his tractor business in the year 2001, whereas he started his new business only in the year 2004 meaning thereby landlord has no idea in the year 2001 that he will be starting his new business – Held, it cannot be said that the landlord had vacated the premises in his occupation after commencement of the Act without sufficient cause. Ramesh Gupta v. Ashok Kumar Jain, 2012(1) L.A.R. 289 (P&H).
