January Part
LAR
SUBJECT INDEX
Acquisition of land
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Objections – Right of -- Section 5A(1) gives a right to any person interested to file an objection, Section 5A(2) requires the Collector to give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorized by him -- After hearing the objections, the Collector can, if he thinks it necessary, make further inquiry, thereafter, he has to make a report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objections together with the record of the proceedings held by him for the decision of the appropriate Government and the decision of the appropriate Government shall be final -- It is a minimal safeguard afforded to him by law to protect himself from arbitrary acquisition -- Act being an ex-proprietary legislation, its provisions will have to be strictly construed. M/S. Kamal Trading Private Limited (Now Known As Manav Investment & Trading Co. Ltd.) v. State of West Bengal & Others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 106 (SC).
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Objections – Report of Collector -- Report of the Collector is not an empty formality -- It is only upon receipt of the said report that the Government can take a final decision on the objections – Formation of opinion by the appropriate Government as regards the public purpose must be preceded by application of mind as regards consideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones – Recommendations must indicate objective application of mind. M/S. Kamal Trading Private Limited (Now Known As Manav Investment & Trading Co. Ltd.) v. State of West Bengal & Others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 106 (SC).
Objections – Opportunity of hearing -- Land Acquisition Officer adjourned the hearing on one occasion as requested by the appellant, however, refused to adjourn the matter any further -- Second request was rejected – Land Acquisition Officer could have adjourned the proceedings after putting the appellant to terms because hearing the representative of the owner companies was mandatory. M/S. Kamal Trading Private Limited (Now Known As Manav Investment & Trading Co. Ltd.) v. State of West Bengal & Others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 106 (SC).
Objections – Report of Collector -- Mere use of the words ‘for the greater interest of public’ does not lend the report the character of a report made after application of mind -- He was not expected to write a detailed report but, his report, however brief, should have reflected application of mind. M/S. Kamal Trading Private Limited (Now Known As Manav Investment & Trading Co. Ltd.) v. State of West Bengal & Others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 106 (SC).
Acquittal in criminal case
Appointment of Lambardar – Mere acquittal will not wash away the stigma of registration of a criminal case attached. Hira Khan @ Gajala v. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 56 (P&H).
Appeal
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 -- House tax assessment – Nature of property, whether it is rented out or in self occupation, present market value and rental income, require the evidence -- Only the appellate authority can determine such questions of fact based on the evidence – Petitioner has right to appeal, it cannot legally be permitted to ignore/bye-pass these statutory remedies under the garb of provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Punjab Alkalies & Chemicals Limited v. The Municipal Council, 2012(1) L.A.R. 1 (P&H).
Appointment of Lambardar
Acquittal in criminal case – Effect of -- Mere acquittal will not wash away the stigma of registration of a criminal case attached. Hira Khan @ Gajala v. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 56 (P&H).
Choice of Collector – Choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of Village Lambardar should not normally be interfered with, unless the Collector has taken a perverse view and has not exercised his choice judiciously. Hira Khan @ Gajala v. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 56 (P&H).
Choice of Collector -- Collector is the appointing authority and in an advantageous position to examine the merits and demerits of the candidates – Collector appointed private respondent as Lambardar, who is a graduate and better qualified than the other two candidates, who has passed Urdu examination and commanding good reputation in the village -- Naib Tehsildar and S.D.O.(C) have recommended his name -- On the contrary, a criminal case was registered against petitioner u/s 148, 323, 324, 326, 506/149 IPC, which was pending in the Court of JMIC – Orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 102 (P&H).
Choice of Collector – Writ jurisdiction -- After considering the respective merits and demerits of the candidates, the District Collector appointed private respondent as Lambardar – Choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of village Lambardar should not normally be interfered -- Orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered, while exercising the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Siri Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 7 (P&H).
Duty of Collector -- Appointment of Lambardar is administrative function and is prerogative of the District Collector, being In-charge of the Administration -- It is the duty of the Collector to appoint such person in the office of Lambardar, who is otherwise eligible and competent to carry out the duties efficiently. Siri Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 7 (P&H).
Employed candidate -- Choice of Collector -- Commissioner/Financial Commissioner has only limited right to interfere that too when the choice of the Collector is found to be perverse, suffers from material irregularity -- Collector held that merely because the petitioner is working at Stone Crusher Company, does not deprive him from performing his duties as Lambardar, rather it should be appreciated that the person is working and earning livelihood of his family -- This cannot be treated as a perverse finding – Order of Collector upheld. Umed Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 50 (P&H).
Board of Directors
Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 – Election – Cancellation of – Jurisdiction of District Magistrate -- Election process commenced for the post of Board of Directors -- Head Constable and two Constables were deployed for the smooth conduct of the election – District Magistrate cancelled the election process on the ground of law and order situation – Held, District Magistrate was well within his right to initiate appropriate proceedings/action under Chapters VIII & XI Cr.P.C., or may pass order u/s 144 and 144-A of the Cr.P.C., or any other law for the time being in force, as the case may be, as warranted by the situation but did not have the jurisdiction, to cancel the already commenced democratic election process, in a very casual and abrupt manner, without any material/basis. Navraj Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 10 (P&H).
Cancellation of Election of Board of Directors
Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 – Jurisdiction of District Magistrate -- Election process commenced for the post of Board of Directors -- Head Constable and two Constables were deployed for the smooth conduct of the election – District Magistrate cancelled the election process on the ground of law and order situation – Held, District Magistrate was well within his right to initiate appropriate proceedings/action under Chapters VIII & XI Cr.P.C., or may pass order u/s 144 and 144-A of the Cr.P.C., or any other law for the time being in force, as the case may be, as warranted by the situation but did not have the jurisdiction, to cancel the already commenced democratic election process, in a very casual and abrupt manner, without any material/basis. Navraj Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 10 (P&H).
Choice of Collector
Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of Village Lambardar should not normally be interfered with, unless the Collector has taken a perverse view and has not exercised his choice judiciously. Hira Khan @ Gajala v. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 56 (P&H).
Appointment of Lambardar – Collector is the appointing authority and in an advantageous position to examine the merits and demerits of the candidates – Collector appointed private respondent as Lambardar, who is a graduate and better qualified than the other two candidates, who has passed Urdu examination and commanding good reputation in the village -- Naib Tehsildar and S.D.O.(C) have recommended his name -- On the contrary, a criminal case was registered against petitioner u/s 148, 323, 324, 326, 506/149 IPC, which was pending in the Court of JMIC – Orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 102 (P&H).
Appointment of Lambardar – Employed candidate -- Choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly -- No interference with the choice made by the Collector even if two views are possible -- Commissioner/Financial Commissioner has only limited right to interfere that too when the choice of the Collector is found to be perverse, suffers from material irregularity -- Collector held that merely because the petitioner is working at Stone Crusher Company, does not deprive him from performing his duties as Lambardar, rather it should be appreciated that the person is working and earning livelihood of his family -- This cannot be treated as a perverse finding – Order of Collector upheld. Umed Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 50 (P&H).
Appointment of Lambardar – Writ jurisdiction -- After considering the respective merits and demerits of the candidates, the District Collector appointed private respondent as Lambardar – Choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of village Lambardar should not normally be interfered -- Orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered, while exercising the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Siri Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 7 (P&H).
Constitution of India
Article 226,227 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – Writ jurisdiction -- After considering the respective merits and demerits of the candidates, the District Collector appointed private respondent as Lambardar – Choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of village Lambardar should not normally be interfered -- Orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered, while exercising the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Siri Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 7 (P&H).
Article 226/227 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Collector is the appointing authority and in an advantageous position to examine the merits and demerits of the candidates – Collector appointed private respondent as Lambardar, who is a graduate and better qualified than the other two candidates, who has passed Urdu examination and commanding good reputation in the village -- Naib Tehsildar and S.D.O.(C) have recommended his name -- On the contrary, a criminal case was registered against petitioner u/s 148, 323, 324, 326, 506/149 IPC, which was pending in the Court of JMIC – Orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 102 (P&H).
Article 226/227 -- Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (3 of 1911), Section 3(1), 67, 68-A, 84 – House tax assessment – Challenge to – Appeal -- Writ Jurisdiction -- Nature of property, whether it is rented out or in self occupation, present market value and rental income, require the evidence -- Only the appellate authority can determine such questions of fact based on the evidence – Petitioner has right to appeal, it cannot legally be permitted to ignore/bye-pass these statutory remedies under the garb of provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Punjab Alkalies & Chemicals Limited v. The Municipal Council, 2012(1) L.A.R. 1 (P&H).
Seventh Schedule, Entry 33,62, 97 -- Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1955 (16 of 1955), Sections 2(d), 3 -- Entertainment tax – Imposition of -- Legislative competence of State – Whether exclusion of ‘sport’ as a subject from taxing Entry 62, and inclusion of the same in non-taxing Entry 33 of the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution is intentional so as to deprive the State Legislature their competence to tax ‘sport’ and leave that competence to Parliament under the residuary Entry 97 of the Union List? – Held, State Legislature is competent to impose entertainment duty/tax on entertainments and amusements, which include sports and accordingly question is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. DLF Golf Resorts Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 78 (P&H Full Bench).
Death of landowner
Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 -- Surplus area – Permissible area – So long as the Collector's determination is a subject of an appeal or a challenge before this Court under Article 226 or in further proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it must only be taken that the determination has not been finally made and consequently, a death of the landowner would certainly cause affectation of the surplus area which would require to be redetermined in the hands of the heirs of the deceased landowner -- So long as the proceedings are still pending, it would inevitably mean that the holding of the deceased that has fallen to be distributed amongst the heirs shall require a fresh reckoning for determination of surplus – Case would require to be remitted to the competent authority under the 1972 Act. Sardara Singh’s case 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 744, relied. Kehar Singh (deceased) through his LRs v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 16 (P&H).
Delivery of possession
Requirement of -- Mutation – Even if there is no actual delivery of possession, even then, AC 2nd Grade was duty bound to enter the mutations on the basis of registered sale deeds as contemplated u/s 34 -- In case of entertaining any kind of doubt of acquisition of any interest in the land by other, then he was duty bound to refer the same (disputed mutations) to the Collector for its adjudication, as envisaged u/s 35. Smt.Nirmaljit Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 24 (P&H).
Power of Assistant Consolidation Officer -- Consolidation proceedings have been completed in the village, claim of ownership of the petitioners was negatived in the civil suits -- Appropriate authorities are required to follow the due/established procedure to implement the orders or to execute the decrees in accordance with law and not otherwise – ACO did not have the power/jurisdiction to write a letter to SDM to deliver the possession of the land in litigation in a casual manner. Sher Singh (since deceased) through his LRs & Another v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 4 (P&H).
Duty of Collector
Appointment of Lambardar – Appointment of Lambardar is administrative function and is prerogative of the District Collector, being In-charge of the Administration -- It is the duty of the Collector to appoint such person in the office of Lambardar, who is otherwise eligible and competent to carry out the duties efficiently. Siri Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 7 (P&H).
East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948)
Section 21 – Delivery of possession of land – Power of Assistant Consolidation Officer -- Consolidation proceedings have been completed in the village, claim of ownership of the petitioners was negatived in the civil suits -- Appropriate authorities are required to follow the due/established procedure to implement the orders or to execute the decrees in accordance with law and not otherwise – ACO did not have the power/jurisdiction to write a letter to SDM to deliver the possession of the land in litigation in a casual manner. Sher Singh (since deceased) through his LRs & Another v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 4 (P&H).
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949)
Section 13(2)(ii)(a) – Sub-tenancy -- Landlord is required to prove that tenant has delivered the possession to the sub tenant for consideration/rent and tenant has no control over the business being run in the shop – Landlord failed to prove these important facts, to the contrary, tenant has established that tenant is running two wheelers repair shop and still in occupation of the possession of the shop in dispute – Held, sub-tenancy not proved. Sohan Singh Sidhu v. Charanjit Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 30 (P&H).
Section 13(2)(ii)(a), 15(5) – Sub-tenancy – Revisional Authority’s Power -- Question of sub tenancy is a question of law also -- While exercising revisional powers High Court has to satisfy as to whether ingredients of sub tenancy are proved or not -- If High court finds that ingredients are not proved then it would be open for this Court to disturb judgments/findings of both the Courts below on the question of sub tenancy. Sohan Singh Sidhu v. Charanjit Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 30 (P&H).
Ejectment
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Question of title raised – Effect of – Eviction order passed -- Revenue authorities considered each and every revenue record produced by the predecessor of the appellants before coming to the conclusion – Held, no prejudice is caused to the appellants, if the Assistant Collector Ist Grade had not converted the eviction proceedings into the title suit. Balbir Kaur alias Godhan and others v. Gram Panchayat Jhorarh Rohi and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 43 (P&H DB).
Election of Board of Directors
Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 – Cancellation of election – Jurisdiction of District Magistrate -- Election process commenced for the post of Board of Directors -- Head Constable and two Constables were deployed for the smooth conduct of the election – District Magistrate cancelled the election process on the ground of law and order situation – Held, District Magistrate was well within his right to initiate appropriate proceedings/action under Chapters VIII & XI Cr.P.C., or may pass order u/s 144 and 144-A of the Cr.P.C., or any other law for the time being in force, as the case may be, as warranted by the situation but did not have the jurisdiction, to cancel the already commenced democratic election process, in a very casual and abrupt manner, without any material/basis. Navraj Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 10 (P&H).
Employed candidate
Appointment of Lambardar – Collector held that merely because the petitioner is working at Stone Crusher Company, does not deprive him from performing his duties as Lambardar, rather it should be appreciated that the person is working and earning livelihood of his family -- This cannot be treated as a perverse finding – Order of Collector upheld. Umed Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 50 (P&H).
Eviction of occupants
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Shamilat deh – Predecessor of the appellants came into possession only in the year 1955-56, thus, the said land is not exempted under Section 4 (3) (ii) of the Act -- Appellants have also failed to prove their individual cultivating possession prior to 26th January, 1950 – Held, no illegality in the order of eviction passed against the appellants. Balbir Kaur alias Godhan and others v. Gram Panchayat Jhorarh Rohi and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 43 (P&H DB).
Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (29 of 1974)
Section 16,17 -- Water course – Restoration of -- Matter was got investigated by the DCO through the Zilledar, who, after spot inspection recommended for the restoration of watercourse – Watercourse was running since long, private respondents were irrigating their land, they have no other watercourse to irrigate their land -- SDCO has rightly accepted the claim, which has been upheld by DCO -- No patent illegality or legal infirmity pointed out, in the orders -- Orders passed by Canal authorities maintained. Baru Ram and others v. The Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, Hisar and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 14 (P&H).
Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972)
Section 3(r), 4 11, 12, 13 – Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 2(5a), 5-B – Surplus area – Permissible area – Death of landowner – Effect of -- So long as the Collector's determination is a subject of an appeal or a challenge before this Court under Article 226 or in further proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it must only be taken that the determination has not been finally made and consequently, a death of the landowner would certainly cause affectation of the surplus area which would require to be redetermined in the hands of the heirs of the deceased landowner -- So long as the proceedings are still pending, it would inevitably mean that the holding of the deceased that has fallen to be distributed amongst the heirs shall require a fresh reckoning for determination of surplus – Case would require to be remitted to the competent authority under the 1972 Act. Sardara Singh’s case 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 744, relied. Kehar Singh (deceased) through his LRs v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 16 (P&H).
Section 3(r), 4, 8 – Transfer of land -- Surplus area – Permissible area – Disposition of 3/4th share in favour of the son and retention of 1/4th share only for landowner – Prime facie it cannot be accepted that there had been any valid disposition and it will be a matter for adjudication before the competent authority at the enquiry. Kehar Singh (deceased) through his LRs v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 16 (P&H).
Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (24 of 1972)
Section 3, 4, 5, 7 -- Unauthorised occupation – Ejectment order – Penalty – Damages/compensation -- Collector can only pass an ejectment order, and he cannot impose the penalty, as envisaged u/s 4 and 5 of the Act -- He has only the power to recover the rent or damages/compensation as arrears of land revenue u/s 7 of the Act and not otherwise after following the statutory procedure provided u/s 7(2) of the Act read with Rule 7 and not otherwise. Sanjay Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 37 (P&H).
Section 6, 7 -- Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Rules, 1973, Rule 7 -- Penalty – Notice – Opportunity of hearing -- No statutory notice u/s 7(2) of the Act read with Rule 7 was issued to the petitioner before imposing the penalty -- Joint notice of ejectment cannot possibly be termed to be the compliance of these statutory provisions -- No opportunity of hearing was granted before imposing the penalty, as envisaged u/s 7(2) – Impugned orders, relatable to imposition of penalty, cannot legally be maintained. Sanjay Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 37 (P&H).
Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Rules, 1973
Rule 7 -- Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (24 of 1972), Section 6, 7 -- Penalty – Notice – Opportunity of hearing -- No statutory notice u/s 7(2) of the Act read with Rule 7 was issued to the petitioner before imposing the penalty -- Joint notice of ejectment cannot possibly be termed to be the compliance of these statutory provisions -- No opportunity of hearing was granted before imposing the penalty, as envisaged u/s 7(2) – Impugned orders, relatable to imposition of penalty, cannot legally be maintained. Sanjay Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 37 (P&H).
House tax assessment
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 -- Appeal -- Writ Jurisdiction -- Nature of property, whether it is rented out or in self occupation, present market value and rental income, require the evidence -- Only the appellate authority can determine such questions of fact based on the evidence – Petitioner has right to appeal, it cannot legally be permitted to ignore/bye-pass these statutory remedies under the garb of provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Punjab Alkalies & Chemicals Limited v. The Municipal Council, 2012(1) L.A.R. 1 (P&H).
Jamabandi entries
Presumption of truth – Rebuttal of -- Mere vague report of Kanungo, site plan and Index report is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of truth attached to the entries contained in the Jamabandis, particularly when Field Kanungo, who prepared the report has admitted that no pacca points were affixed by him at the time of demarcation. Manmohan Kaur v. Davinder Pal Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 62 (P&H).
Joint land
Possession -- Nature of -- Once the parties to the lis have purchased their respective shares out of joint property, then they cannot claim to be in exclusive possession of any particular portion of the suit property, unless and until, the joint land is legally partitioned between them -- It will remain a joint property of the parties and plaintiff cannot claim exclusive possession of any specific portion. Manmohan Kaur v. Davinder Pal Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 62 (P&H).
Possession -- Partition of land -- If any co-owner is in possession of any portion of the land, he can protect the same, unless and until, the joint land is duly partitioned in accordance with law – Co-owner wants the possession of the suit land, then she has to file a suit for partition of the joint land -- In the absence of the same, suit for possession is not maintainable. Manmohan Kaur v. Davinder Pal Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 62 (P&H).
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894)
Section 4,5A, 6 – Acquisition of land – Objections – Right of -- Section 5A(1) gives a right to any person interested to file an objection, Section 5A(2) requires the Collector to give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorized by him -- After hearing the objections, the Collector can, if he thinks it necessary, make further inquiry, thereafter, he has to make a report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objections together with the record of the proceedings held by him for the decision of the appropriate Government and the decision of the appropriate Government shall be final -- It is a minimal safeguard afforded to him by law to protect himself from arbitrary acquisition -- Act being an ex-proprietary legislation, its provisions will have to be strictly construed. M/S. Kamal Trading Private Limited (Now Known As Manav Investment & Trading Co. Ltd.) v. State of West Bengal & Others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 106 (SC).
Section 4,5A, 6 – Acquisition of land – Objections – Report of Collector -- Report of the Collector is not an empty formality -- It is only upon receipt of the said report that the Government can take a final decision on the objections – Formation of opinion by the appropriate Government as regards the public purpose must be preceded by application of mind as regards consideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones – Recommendations must indicate objective application of mind. M/S. Kamal Trading Private Limited (Now Known As Manav Investment & Trading Co. Ltd.) v. State of West Bengal & Others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 106 (SC).
Section 4,5A, 6 – Acquisition of land – Objections – Opportunity of hearing -- Land Acquisition Officer adjourned the hearing on one occasion as requested by the appellant, however, refused to adjourn the matter any further -- Second request was rejected – Land Acquisition Officer could have adjourned the proceedings after putting the appellant to terms because hearing the representative of the owner companies was mandatory. M/S. Kamal Trading Private Limited (Now Known As Manav Investment & Trading Co. Ltd.) v. State of West Bengal & Others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 106 (SC).
Section 4,5A, 6 – Acquisition of land – Objections – Report of Collector -- Mere use of the words ‘for the greater interest of public’ does not lend the report the character of a report made after application of mind -- Land Acquisition Officer’s report is utterly laconic and bereft of any recommendations – He was not expected to write a detailed report but, his report, however brief, should have reflected application of mind. M/S. Kamal Trading Private Limited (Now Known As Manav Investment & Trading Co. Ltd.) v. State of West Bengal & Others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 106 (SC).
Mode of partition
Earlier the mode of partition was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal which was also dismissed so there is no question of filing a fresh application for preparation of fresh mode of partition. Vinod Kumar v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 73 (P&H).
Mutation
Challenge to -- Party aggrieved by the orders passed in mutation proceedings can always redress his grievance by way of filing suit for title. Smt.Nirmaljit Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 24 (P&H).
Delivery of possession – Requirement of -- Even if there is no actual delivery of possession, even then, AC 2nd Grade was duty bound to enter the mutations on the basis of registered sale deeds as contemplated u/s 34 -- In case of entertaining any kind of doubt of acquisition of any interest in the land by other, then he was duty bound to refer the same (disputed mutations) to the Collector for its adjudication, as envisaged u/s 35. Smt.Nirmaljit Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 24 (P&H).
Proceedings of mutations are not judicial proceedings -- Mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue. Smt.Nirmaljit Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 24 (P&H).
Possession – Relevancy of -- Even if the petitioners are not in possession even then the mutation to the extent of the share is required to be sanctioned as the mutation does not confer any title. Madan Lal and others v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 71 (P&H).
Private respondents were in possession of the land, which they have purchased by way of sale-deed and enquiry was initiated with regard to insufficient stamp duty on their sale-deed by the Collector -- During the course of enquiry, the petitioners also purchased the same Khasra Number from other co-sharers through the Power of Attorney -- All these vital aspects were not considered and just ignored by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade with impunity -- Collector has rightly remitted the matter back to the Assistant Collector. Narinder Kumar Gupta and another v. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 22 (P&H).
Nature of Mutation
Proceedings of mutations are not judicial proceedings -- Mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue. Smt.Nirmaljit Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 24 (P&H).
Nikal
Wari -- Land of private respondents comes at the end of the main watercourse, they are entitled to Nikal – Petitioners are having only 5 acres of land, whereas the land of private respondents is more than 13 acres, as such, the petitioners cannot consume the entire Nikal, whereas the private respondents can use the entire Nikal as per the provisions of the law -- Nikal cannot be given in parts – Held, private respondents have a right to Nikal. Satnam Chand and another v. Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 34 (P&H).
No-Confidence motion against Sarpanch
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 -- Mere passing of resolution of ‘No Confidence Motion' is not sufficient to debar the elected Sarpanch, unless all the formalities, essential to issue notification to de-notify his name are completed. Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 59 (P&H).
Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (8 of 1973)
Section 68 – Warabandi – Temporary in nature -- U/s 68 of the Act, the Deputy Collector decides only about the use and distribution of water -- Order fixing the Warabandi does not become final for all times to come -- If one Warabandi is suggested at one time, then after some time, on the application of an aggrieved person, the same can be changed -- Fixing of Warabandi u/s 68 of the Act, is a temporary arrangement -- It may go on for some years or it may be changed earlier. Satnam Chand and another v. Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 34 (P&H).
Section 68 – Turn of the water -- In view of the consolidated land, the turn of water first will be on the basis of the principle of “First Come, First Serve” basis. Satnam Chand and another v. Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 34 (P&H).
Section 68 – Nikal – Wari -- Land of private respondents comes at the end of the main watercourse, they are entitled to Nikal – Petitioners are having only 5 acres of land, whereas the land of private respondents is more than 13 acres, as such, the petitioners cannot consume the entire Nikal, whereas the private respondents can use the entire Nikal as per the provisions of the law -- Nikal cannot be given in parts – Held, private respondents have a right to Nikal. Satnam Chand and another v. Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 34 (P&H).
Notice
Haryana Public Premises Act -- Penalty – Opportunity of hearing -- No statutory notice u/s 7(2) of the Act read with Rule 7 was issued to the petitioner before imposing the penalty -- Joint notice of ejectment cannot possibly be termed to be the compliance of these statutory provisions -- No opportunity of hearing was granted before imposing the penalty, as envisaged u/s 7(2) – Impugned orders, relatable to imposition of penalty, cannot legally be maintained. Sanjay Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 37 (P&H).
Objections
Acquisition of land – Opportunity of hearing -- Land Acquisition Officer adjourned the hearing on one occasion as requested by the appellant, however, refused to adjourn the matter any further -- Second request was rejected – Land Acquisition Officer could have adjourned the proceedings after putting the appellant to terms because hearing the representative of the owner companies was mandatory. M/S. Kamal Trading Private Limited (Now Known As Manav Investment & Trading Co. Ltd.) v. State of West Bengal & Others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 106 (SC).
Acquisition of land – Report of Collector -- Mere use of the words ‘for the greater interest of public’ does not lend the report the character of a report made after application of mind -- He was not expected to write a detailed report but, his report, however brief, should have reflected application of mind. M/S. Kamal Trading Private Limited (Now Known As Manav Investment & Trading Co. Ltd.) v. State of West Bengal & Others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 106 (SC).
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Acquisition of land – Report of Collector -- Report of the Collector is not an empty formality -- It is only upon receipt of the said report that the Government can take a final decision on the objections – Formation of opinion by the appropriate Government as regards the public purpose must be preceded by application of mind as regards consideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones – Recommendations must indicate objective application of mind. M/S. Kamal Trading Private Limited (Now Known As Manav Investment & Trading Co. Ltd.) v. State of West Bengal & Others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 106 (SC).
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Section 5A(1) gives a right to any person interested to file an objection, Section 5A(2) requires the Collector to give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorized by him -- After hearing the objections, the Collector can, if he thinks it necessary, make further inquiry, thereafter, he has to make a report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objections together with the record of the proceedings held by him for the decision of the appropriate Government and the decision of the appropriate Government shall be final -- It is a minimal safeguard afforded to him by law to protect himself from arbitrary acquisition -- Act being an ex-proprietary legislation, its provisions will have to be strictly construed. M/S. Kamal Trading Private Limited (Now Known As Manav Investment & Trading Co. Ltd.) v. State of West Bengal & Others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 106 (SC).
Opportunity of hearing
Acquisition of land – Objections – Land Acquisition Officer adjourned the hearing on one occasion as requested by the appellant, however, refused to adjourn the matter any further -- Second request was rejected – Land Acquisition Officer could have adjourned the proceedings after putting the appellant to terms because hearing the representative of the owner companies was mandatory. M/S. Kamal Trading Private Limited (Now Known As Manav Investment & Trading Co. Ltd.) v. State of West Bengal & Others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 106 (SC).
Haryana Public Premises Act -- Penalty – Notice – No statutory notice u/s 7(2) of the Act read with Rule 7 was issued to the petitioner before imposing the penalty -- Joint notice of ejectment cannot possibly be termed to be the compliance of these statutory provisions -- No opportunity of hearing was granted before imposing the penalty, as envisaged u/s 7(2) – Impugned orders, relatable to imposition of penalty, cannot legally be maintained. Sanjay Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 37 (P&H).
Partition of land
Joint land – Possession -- If any co-owner is in possession of any portion of the land, he can protect the same, unless and until, the joint land is duly partitioned in accordance with law – Co-owner wants the possession of the suit land, then she has to file a suit for partition of the joint land -- In the absence of the same, suit for possession is not maintainable. Manmohan Kaur v. Davinder Pal Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 62 (P&H).
Penalty
Haryana Public Premises Act -- Notice – Opportunity of hearing -- No statutory notice u/s 7(2) of the Act read with Rule 7 was issued to the petitioner before imposing the penalty -- Joint notice of ejectment cannot possibly be termed to be the compliance of these statutory provisions -- No opportunity of hearing was granted before imposing the penalty, as envisaged u/s 7(2) – Impugned orders, relatable to imposition of penalty, cannot legally be maintained. Sanjay Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 37 (P&H).
Permissible area
Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 -- Surplus area – Death of landowner – Effect of -- So long as the Collector's determination is a subject of an appeal or a challenge before this Court under Article 226 or in further proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it must only be taken that the determination has not been finally made and consequently, a death of the landowner would certainly cause affectation of the surplus area which would require to be redetermined in the hands of the heirs of the deceased landowner -- So long as the proceedings are still pending, it would inevitably mean that the holding of the deceased that has fallen to be distributed amongst the heirs shall require a fresh reckoning for determination of surplus – Case would require to be remitted to the competent authority under the 1972 Act. Sardara Singh’s case 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 744, relied. Kehar Singh (deceased) through his LRs v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 16 (P&H).
Transfer of land -- Surplus area – Disposition of 3/4th share in favour of the son and retention of 1/4th share only for landowner – Prime facie it cannot be accepted that there had been any valid disposition and it will be a matter for adjudication before the competent authority at the enquiry. Kehar Singh (deceased) through his LRs v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 16 (P&H).
Possession
Joint land – Partition of land -- If any co-owner is in possession of any portion of the land, he can protect the same, unless and until, the joint land is duly partitioned in accordance with law – Co-owner wants the possession of the suit land, then she has to file a suit for partition of the joint land -- In the absence of the same, suit for possession is not maintainable. Manmohan Kaur v. Davinder Pal Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 62 (P&H).
Relevancy of -- Mutation – Even if the petitioners are not in possession even then the mutation to the extent of the share is required to be sanctioned as the mutation does not confer any title. Madan Lal and others v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 71 (P&H).
Power of Assistant Consolidation Officer
Delivery of possession of land – Consolidation proceedings have been completed in the village, claim of ownership of the petitioners was negatived in the civil suits -- Appropriate authorities are required to follow the due/established procedure to implement the orders or to execute the decrees in accordance with law and not otherwise – ACO did not have the power/jurisdiction to write a letter to SDM to deliver the possession of the land in litigation in a casual manner. Sher Singh (since deceased) through his LRs & Another v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 4 (P&H).
Presumption of truth
Jamabandi entries – Rebuttal of -- Mere vague report of Kanungo, site plan and Index report is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of truth attached to the entries contained in the Jamabandis, particularly when Field Kanungo, who prepared the report has admitted that no pacca points were affixed by him at the time of demarcation. Manmohan Kaur v. Davinder Pal Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 62 (P&H).
Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961)
Section 26 -- Board of Directors – Election of – Cancellation of – Jurisdiction of District Magistrate -- Election process commenced for the post of Board of Directors -- Head Constable and two Constables were deployed for the smooth conduct of the election – District Magistrate cancelled the election process on the ground of law and order situation – Held, District Magistrate was well within his right to initiate appropriate proceedings/action under Chapters VIII & XI Cr.P.C., or may pass order u/s 144 and 144-A of the Cr.P.C., or any other law for the time being in force, as the case may be, as warranted by the situation but did not have the jurisdiction, to cancel the already commenced democratic election process, in a very casual and abrupt manner, without any material/basis. Navraj Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 10 (P&H).
Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1955 (16 of 1955)
Sections 2(d), 3 -- Constitution of India, Seventh Schedule, Entry 33,62, 97 -- Entertainment tax – Imposition of -- Legislative competence of State – Whether exclusion of ‘sport’ as a subject from taxing Entry 62, and inclusion of the same in non-taxing Entry 33 of the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution is intentional so as to deprive the State Legislature their competence to tax ‘sport’ and leave that competence to Parliament under the residuary Entry 97 of the Union List? – Held, State Legislature is competent to impose entertainment duty/tax on entertainments and amusements, which include sports and accordingly question is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. DLF Golf Resorts Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 78 (P&H Full Bench).
Sections 2(d), 3 – Sports club – Entertainment tax -- Imposition of entertainment duty is not only on sport but on the ‘sports club’, which is embroiled in score of other activities which included partying, wining and dining -- Words ‘amusements’ and ‘entertainments’ would include ‘sports’ as well. DLF Golf Resorts Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 78 (P&H Full Bench).
Sections 2(d), 3 – Sports club – Entertainment tax -- Video games are subject to entertainment tax -- Even if a person is entertained in a video parlour by his own performance, there is no legal requirement that the owner of the video parlour should organise some entertainment programme like performance in theatre, amusement, games or any sport -- In other words, it is no longer sine qua non that performance by a third party organised at the instance of the assessee is imperative in order to attract entertainment tax -- Mode of payment is wholly immaterial whether made at the entry or at the time of playing games, therefore, a lump sum amount paid in the beginning or annual subscription given year after year would hardly make any difference -- A performance becomes public in character when people come to play the game by displaying their own skill for consideration at a place where the members of the public are invited to pay and enjoy the facilities. DLF Golf Resorts Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 78 (P&H Full Bench).
Sections 2(d), 3 – Sports club – Entertainment tax -- Whether the Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Chrysalis International Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 2008 (4) PLR 323, has been correctly decided by applying the law laid by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in M/s Geeta Enterprises v. State of U.P., (1983) 4 SCC 202. The question is ‘does the Homer nod’? – Held, the judgment in case of Chrysalis International (P) Ltd. has been correctly decided. DLF Golf Resorts Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 78 (P&H Full Bench).
Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887)
Section 111 – Joint land – Possession -- Nature of -- Once the parties to the lis have purchased their respective shares out of joint property, then they cannot claim to be in exclusive possession of any particular portion of the suit property, unless and until, the joint land is legally partitioned between them -- It will remain a joint property of the parties and plaintiff cannot claim exclusive possession of any specific portion. Manmohan Kaur v. Davinder Pal Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 62 (P&H).
Section 111 – Joint land – Possession -- Partition of land -- If any co-owner is in possession of any portion of the land, he can protect the same, unless and until, the joint land is duly partitioned in accordance with law – Co-owner wants the possession of the suit land, then she has to file a suit for partition of the joint land -- In the absence of the same, suit for possession is not maintainable. Manmohan Kaur v. Davinder Pal Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 62 (P&H).
Section 111, 116 – Mode of partition – Earlier the mode of partition was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal which was also dismissed so there is no question of filing a fresh application for preparation of fresh mode of partition. Vinod Kumar v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 73 (P&H).
Section 13, 16 – Appointment of Lambardar – Employed candidate -- Choice of Collector -- Choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly -- No interference with the choice made by the Collector even if two views are possible -- Commissioner/Financial Commissioner has only limited right to interfere that too when the choice of the Collector is found to be perverse, suffers from material irregularity -- Collector held that merely because the petitioner is working at Stone Crusher Company, does not deprive him from performing his duties as Lambardar, rather it should be appreciated that the person is working and earning livelihood of his family -- This cannot be treated as a perverse finding – Order of Collector upheld. Umed Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 50 (P&H).
Section 13, 34 – Mutation -- Private respondents were in possession of the land, which they have purchased by way of sale-deed and enquiry was initiated with regard to insufficient stamp duty on their sale-deed by the Collector -- During the course of enquiry, the petitioners also purchased the same Khasra Number from other co-sharers through the Power of Attorney -- All these vital aspects were not considered and just ignored by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade with impunity -- Collector has rightly remitted the matter back to the Assistant Collector. Narinder Kumar Gupta and another v. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 22 (P&H).
Section 13,15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – Choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of Village Lambardar should not normally be interfered with, unless the Collector has taken a perverse view and has not exercised his choice judiciously. Hira Khan @ Gajala v. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 56 (P&H).
Section 34 – Mutation – Possession – Relevancy of -- Even if the petitioners are not in possession even then the mutation to the extent of the share is required to be sanctioned as the mutation does not confer any title. Madan Lal and others v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 71 (P&H).
Section 34, 44 – Jamabandi entries – Presumption of truth – Rebuttal of -- Mere vague report of Kanungo, site plan and Index report is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of truth attached to the entries contained in the Jamabandis, particularly when Field Kanungo, who prepared the report has admitted that no pacca points were affixed by him at the time of demarcation. Manmohan Kaur v. Davinder Pal Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 62 (P&H).
Section 34,35 – Mutation – Delivery of possession – Requirement of -- Even if there is no actual delivery of possession, even then, AC 2nd Grade was duty bound to enter the mutations on the basis of registered sale deeds as contemplated u/s 34 -- In case of entertaining any kind of doubt of acquisition of any interest in the land by other, then he was duty bound to refer the same (disputed mutations) to the Collector for its adjudication, as envisaged u/s 35. Smt.Nirmaljit Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 24 (P&H).
Section 34,35 – Mutation – Nature of -- Proceedings of mutations are not judicial proceedings -- Mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue. Smt.Nirmaljit Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 24 (P&H).
Section 34,35 – Mutation – Challenge to -- Party aggrieved by the orders passed in mutation proceedings can always redress his grievance by way of filing suit for title. Smt.Nirmaljit Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 24 (P&H).
Punjab Land Revenue Rules
Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Duty of Collector -- Appointment of Lambardar is administrative function and is prerogative of the District Collector, being In-charge of the Administration -- It is the duty of the Collector to appoint such person in the office of Lambardar, who is otherwise eligible and competent to carry out the duties efficiently. Siri Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 7 (P&H).
Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226,227 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – Writ jurisdiction -- After considering the respective merits and demerits of the candidates, the District Collector appointed private respondent as Lambardar – Choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of village Lambardar should not normally be interfered -- Orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered, while exercising the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Siri Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 7 (P&H).
Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226/227 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Collector is the appointing authority and in an advantageous position to examine the merits and demerits of the candidates – Collector appointed private respondent as Lambardar, who is a graduate and better qualified than the other two candidates, who has passed Urdu examination and commanding good reputation in the village -- Naib Tehsildar and S.D.O.(C) have recommended his name -- On the contrary, a criminal case was registered against petitioner u/s 148, 323, 324, 326, 506/149 IPC, which was pending in the Court of JMIC – Orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 102 (P&H).
Rule 15, 16 – Appointment of Lambardar – Acquittal in criminal case – Effect of -- Mere acquittal will not wash away the stigma of registration of a criminal case attached. Hira Khan @ Gajala v. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 56 (P&H).
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (3 of 1911)
Section 3(1), 67, 68-A, 84 – Constitution of India, Article 226/227 -- House tax assessment – Challenge to – Appeal -- Writ Jurisdiction -- Nature of property, whether it is rented out or in self occupation, present market value and rental income, require the evidence -- Only the appellate authority can determine such questions of fact based on the evidence – Petitioner has right to appeal, it cannot legally be permitted to ignore/bye-pass these statutory remedies under the garb of provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Punjab Alkalies & Chemicals Limited v. The Municipal Council, 2012(1) L.A.R. 1 (P&H).
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994)
Section 19 – No-Confidence motion against Sarpanch -- Mere passing of resolution of ‘No Confidence Motion' is not sufficient to debar the elected Sarpanch, unless all the formalities, essential to issue notification to de-notify his name are completed. Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 59 (P&H).
Section 9, 19 – Sarpanch – Re-instatement of -- Once a person was reinstated on the post of Sarpanch, then the petitioner, who was a Panch, temporarily authorized to act as Sarpanch, has got no right, title or interest to act as Sarpanch. Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 59 (P&H).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953)
Section 2(5a), 5-B – Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 3(r), 4 11, 12, 13 – Surplus area – Permissible area – Death of landowner – Effect of -- So long as the Collector's determination is a subject of an appeal or a challenge before this Court under Article 226 or in further proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it must only be taken that the determination has not been finally made and consequently, a death of the landowner would certainly cause affectation of the surplus area which would require to be redetermined in the hands of the heirs of the deceased landowner -- So long as the proceedings are still pending, it would inevitably mean that the holding of the deceased that has fallen to be distributed amongst the heirs shall require a fresh reckoning for determination of surplus – Case would require to be remitted to the competent authority under the 1972 Act. Sardara Singh’s case 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 744, relied. Kehar Singh (deceased) through his LRs v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 16 (P&H).
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961)
Section 4(3)(ii), 2(g)(5)(v),(viii) – Shamilat deh – Eviction of occupants -- Predecessor of the appellants came into possession only in the year 1955-56, thus, the said land is not exempted under Section 4 (3) (ii) of the Act -- Appellants have also failed to prove their individual cultivating possession prior to 26th January, 1950 – Held, no illegality in the order of eviction passed against the appellants. Balbir Kaur alias Godhan and others v. Gram Panchayat Jhorarh Rohi and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 43 (P&H DB).
Section 7(1) – Ejectment – Question of title raised – Effect of – Eviction order passed -- Revenue authorities considered each and every revenue record produced by the predecessor of the appellants before coming to the conclusion – Held, no prejudice is caused to the appellants, if the Assistant Collector Ist Grade had not converted the eviction proceedings into the title suit. Balbir Kaur alias Godhan and others v. Gram Panchayat Jhorarh Rohi and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 43 (P&H DB).
Question of title raised
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Ejectment – Eviction order passed -- Revenue authorities considered each and every revenue record produced by the predecessor of the appellants before coming to the conclusion – Held, no prejudice is caused to the appellants, if the Assistant Collector Ist Grade had not converted the eviction proceedings into the title suit. Balbir Kaur alias Godhan and others v. Gram Panchayat Jhorarh Rohi and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 43 (P&H DB).
Rebuttal of Presumption of truth
Jamabandi entries – Mere vague report of Kanungo, site plan and Index report is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of truth attached to the entries contained in the Jamabandis, particularly when Field Kanungo, who prepared the report has admitted that no pacca points were affixed by him at the time of demarcation. Manmohan Kaur v. Davinder Pal Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 62 (P&H).
Re-instatement of Sarpanch
Once a person was reinstated on the post of Sarpanch, then the petitioner, who was a Panch, temporarily authorized to act as Sarpanch, has got no right, title or interest to act as Sarpanch. Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 59 (P&H).
Report of Collector
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Objections – Mere use of the words ‘for the greater interest of public’ does not lend the report the character of a report made after application of mind -- He was not expected to write a detailed report but, his report, however brief, should have reflected application of mind. M/S. Kamal Trading Private Limited (Now Known As Manav Investment & Trading Co. Ltd.) v. State of West Bengal & Others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 106 (SC).
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Acquisition of land – Objections – Report of the Collector is not an empty formality -- It is only upon receipt of the said report that the Government can take a final decision on the objections – Formation of opinion by the appropriate Government as regards the public purpose must be preceded by application of mind as regards consideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones – Recommendations must indicate objective application of mind. M/S. Kamal Trading Private Limited (Now Known As Manav Investment & Trading Co. Ltd.) v. State of West Bengal & Others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 106 (SC).
Restoration of Water course
Matter was got investigated by the DCO through the Zilledar, who, after spot inspection recommended for the restoration of watercourse – Watercourse was running since long, private respondents were irrigating their land, they have no other watercourse to irrigate their land -- SDCO has rightly accepted the claim, which has been upheld by DCO -- No patent illegality or legal infirmity pointed out, in the orders -- Orders passed by Canal authorities maintained. Baru Ram and others v. The Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, Hisar and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 14 (P&H).
Revisional Authority’s Power
Rent Act -- Sub-tenancy – Question of sub tenancy is a question of law also -- While exercising revisional powers High Court has to satisfy as to whether ingredients of sub tenancy are proved or not -- If High court finds that ingredients are not proved then it would be open for this Court to disturb judgments/findings of both the Courts below on the question of sub tenancy. Sohan Singh Sidhu v. Charanjit Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 30 (P&H).
Revoking of suspension
Suspension of Panch/Sarpanch – Right of Complainant -- While revoking the order of suspension passed at the behest of a complainant, the complainant is not required to be heard – In case the complainant is aggrieved by what is perceived to be an unjust order of revocation, the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is always available to him. Dhup Singh v. Phulla Ram and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 75 (P&H Full Bench).
Right of Complainant
Suspension of Panch/Sarpanch – Revoking of suspension – While revoking the order of suspension passed at the behest of a complainant, the complainant is not required to be heard – In case the complainant is aggrieved by what is perceived to be an unjust order of revocation, the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is always available to him. Dhup Singh v. Phulla Ram and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 75 (P&H Full Bench).
Shamilat deh
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Eviction of occupants -- Predecessor of the appellants came into possession only in the year 1955-56, thus, the said land is not exempted under Section 4 (3) (ii) of the Act -- Appellants have also failed to prove their individual cultivating possession prior to 26th January, 1950 – Held, no illegality in the order of eviction passed against the appellants. Balbir Kaur alias Godhan and others v. Gram Panchayat Jhorarh Rohi and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 43 (P&H DB).
Sub-tenancy
Rent Act -- Landlord is required to prove that tenant has delivered the possession to the sub tenant for consideration/rent and tenant has no control over the business being run in the shop – Landlord failed to prove these important facts, to the contrary, tenant has established that tenant is running two wheelers repair shop and still in occupation of the possession of the shop in dispute – Held, sub-tenancy not proved. Sohan Singh Sidhu v. Charanjit Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 30 (P&H).
Rent Act -- Revisional Authority’s Power -- Question of sub tenancy is a question of law also -- While exercising revisional powers High Court has to satisfy as to whether ingredients of sub tenancy are proved or not -- If High court finds that ingredients are not proved then it would be open for this Court to disturb judgments/findings of both the Courts below on the question of sub tenancy. Sohan Singh Sidhu v. Charanjit Singh, 2012(1) L.A.R. 30 (P&H).
Surplus area
Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 -- Permissible area – Death of landowner – Effect of -- So long as the Collector's determination is a subject of an appeal or a challenge before this Court under Article 226 or in further proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it must only be taken that the determination has not been finally made and consequently, a death of the landowner would certainly cause affectation of the surplus area which would require to be redetermined in the hands of the heirs of the deceased landowner -- So long as the proceedings are still pending, it would inevitably mean that the holding of the deceased that has fallen to be distributed amongst the heirs shall require a fresh reckoning for determination of surplus – Case would require to be remitted to the competent authority under the 1972 Act. Sardara Singh’s case 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 744, relied. Kehar Singh (deceased) through his LRs v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 16 (P&H).
Transfer of land -- Permissible area – Disposition of 3/4th share in favour of the son and retention of 1/4th share only for landowner – Prime facie it cannot be accepted that there had been any valid disposition and it will be a matter for adjudication before the competent authority at the enquiry. Kehar Singh (deceased) through his LRs v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 16 (P&H).
Suspension of Panch/Sarpanch
Revoking of suspension – Right of Complainant -- While revoking the order of suspension passed at the behest of a complainant, the complainant is not required to be heard – In case the complainant is aggrieved by what is perceived to be an unjust order of revocation, the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is always available to him. Dhup Singh v. Phulla Ram and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 75 (P&H Full Bench).
Transfer of land
Surplus area – Permissible area – Disposition of 3/4th share in favour of the son and retention of 1/4th share only for landowner – Prime facie it cannot be accepted that there had been any valid disposition and it will be a matter for adjudication before the competent authority at the enquiry. Kehar Singh (deceased) through his LRs v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 16 (P&H).
Turn of the water
In view of the consolidated land, the turn of water first will be on the basis of the principle of “First Come, First Serve” basis. Satnam Chand and another v. Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 34 (P&H).
Warabandi
Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 -- Temporary in nature -- U/s 68 of the Act, the Deputy Collector decides only about the use and distribution of water -- Order fixing the Warabandi does not become final for all times to come -- If one Warabandi is suggested at one time, then after some time, on the application of an aggrieved person, the same can be changed -- Fixing of Warabandi u/s 68 of the Act, is a temporary arrangement -- It may go on for some years or it may be changed earlier. Satnam Chand and another v. Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 34 (P&H).
Wari
Nikal – Land of private respondents comes at the end of the main watercourse, they are entitled to Nikal – Petitioners are having only 5 acres of land, whereas the land of private respondents is more than 13 acres, as such, the petitioners cannot consume the entire Nikal, whereas the private respondents can use the entire Nikal as per the provisions of the law -- Nikal cannot be given in parts – Held, private respondents have a right to Nikal. Satnam Chand and another v. Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur Canal Circle and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 34 (P&H).
Water course
Restoration of -- Matter was got investigated by the DCO through the Zilledar, who, after spot inspection recommended for the restoration of watercourse – Watercourse was running since long, private respondents were irrigating their land, they have no other watercourse to irrigate their land -- SDCO has rightly accepted the claim, which has been upheld by DCO -- No patent illegality or legal infirmity pointed out, in the orders -- Orders passed by Canal authorities maintained. Baru Ram and others v. The Sub-Divisional Canal Officer, Hisar and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 14 (P&H).
Writ jurisdiction
Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – After considering the respective merits and demerits of the candidates, the District Collector appointed private respondent as Lambardar – Choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of village Lambardar should not normally be interfered -- Orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered, while exercising the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Siri Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 7 (P&H).
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 -- House tax assessment – Appeal -- Nature of property, whether it is rented out or in self occupation, present market value and rental income, require the evidence -- Only the appellate authority can determine such questions of fact based on the evidence – Petitioner has right to appeal, it cannot legally be permitted to ignore/bye-pass these statutory remedies under the garb of provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Punjab Alkalies & Chemicals Limited v. The Municipal Council, 2012(1) L.A.R. 1 (P&H).
