Local Acts Reporter
L.A.R
A Unique Monthly Law
Journal
Reporting
latest judgments of (Supreme Court of India,
Punjab and Haryana High Court, Financial Commissioners of Punjab
and Haryana)
on
Local (State) Acts of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh
(As well as Rent & Revenue)
(Alongwith Statutory Amendments Section)Annual Subscription for the year 2013 : Rs. 1390/- (Three Volumes)
Bound Volume w.e.f. 2004 upto 2012(3) Rs. 620/- each
Contact: Amit Gupta : 0-94174-15528
-----------------
SUBJECT INDEX
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908)
Section 144 – Constitution of India,
Article 227 -- Restitution of possession -- Article 227 of the Constitution of
India confers vast powers on this Court to prevent the abuse of process of law
by the inferior Courts and to see that the stream of administration of justice
remains clean and pure -- For securing the ends of justice, High Court can
interfere with an order which causes miscarriage of justice or is palpably
illegal or is unjustified -- Since the petitioner has been dispossessed from
the demised premises in a wholly unjustified and palpably wrong manner --
Status of the JD-petitioner is to be restored back. Madan Lal v. Nirmal Kumari and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 205 (P&H).
Section 144 – Restitution of possession -- Jurisdiction to make
restitution is inherent in every Court and will be exercised whenever the
justice of the case demands -- It will be exercised under inherent powers where
the case strictly falls within the ambit of Section 144 of the Civil Procedure
Code. Madan Lal v. Nirmal Kumari and
others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 205 (P&H).
Constitution of India
Article 227 -- Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 144 – Restitution of possession -- Article
227 of the Constitution of India confers vast powers on this Court to prevent
the abuse of process of law by the inferior Courts and to see that the stream
of administration of justice remains clean and pure -- For securing the ends of
justice, High Court can interfere with an order which causes miscarriage of
justice or is palpably illegal or is unjustified -- Since the petitioner has
been dispossessed from the demised premises in a wholly unjustified and
palpably wrong manner -- Status of the JD-petitioner is to be restored back. Madan Lal v. Nirmal Kumari and others,
2012(2) L.A.R. 205 (P&H).
Article 227 -- Displaced Persons
(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954), Section 24 –
Cancellation of land – Writ jurisdiction -- Displaced Persons, who played fraud
not only with the vendees but with the Government and sold the land without
there being any title on the same, should not be permitted to invoke the
equitable jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. Iqbal Singh and others v.
Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Secretary and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 193
(P&H DB).
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of
1954)
Section 24 – Constitution of India,
Article 227 -- Cancellation of land – Writ jurisdiction -- Displaced Persons,
who played fraud not only with the vendees but with the Government and sold the
land without there being any title on the same, should not be permitted to
invoke the equitable jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Iqbal Singh and
others v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Secretary and others, 2012(2)
L.A.R. 193 (P&H DB).
East Punjab Holdings
(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948)
Section 42 -- East Punjab Holdings
(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, Rule 16 -- Jumla
Mushtarka Malkan -- Rule 16(ii), provides that if, in a revenue estate, there
is no “Shamilat Deh” or it is inadequate, consolidation authorities shall apply
a pro-rata cut on the holdings of proprietors and reserve land for the Gram
Panchayat and for other common purposes -- Land so created is known as “Jumla
Mushtarka Malkan” -- Ownership of such land vests in the proprietors but its
management and control vests in a Gram Panchayat -- Land, therefore, cannot be
partitioned. Gram Panchayat,
Channo/Mallaheri v. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab
and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 241 (P&H DB).
Section 42 -- East Punjab Holdings
(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, Rule 16 -- Punjab
Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 (Punjab)
-- Jumla Mushtarka Malkan -- Bachat Land -- “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” is neither
“Bachat Land” nor are the two expressions, 'synonymous' or 'interchangeable' --
Jumla Mushtarka Malkan land cannot be partitioned or distributed amongst
proprietors as it is reserved for common purposes -- Bachat Land, on the other
hand, is land left over, after reserving land for the Gram Panchayat and for
other common purposes and is generally redistributed amongst proprietors at the
time of consolidation – Private respondents may, however, approach the
Collector, u/s 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961,
for adjudication of any plea that this land was not reserved for common
purposes and is wrongly reserved as “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan”. Gram Panchayat, Channo/Mallaheri v.
Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab
and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 241 (P&H DB).
East Punjab Holdings
(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949
Rule 16 -- East Punjab Holdings
(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section
42 -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section
11 (Punjab) -- Jumla Mushtarka Malkan -- Bachat Land -- “Jumla Mushtarka
Malkan” is neither “Bachat Land” nor are the two expressions, 'synonymous' or
'interchangeable' -- Jumla Mushtarka Malkan land cannot be partitioned or
distributed amongst proprietors as it is reserved for common purposes -- Bachat
Land, on the other hand, is land left over, after reserving land for the Gram
Panchayat and for other common purposes and is generally redistributed amongst
proprietors at the time of consolidation – Private respondents may, however,
approach the Collector, u/s 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)
Act, 1961, for adjudication of any plea that this land was not reserved for
common purposes and is wrongly reserved as “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan”. Gram Panchayat, Channo/Mallaheri v.
Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab
and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 241 (P&H DB).
Rule 16 -- East Punjab Holdings
(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section
42 -- Jumla Mushtarka Malkan -- Rule 16(ii), provides that if, in a revenue
estate, there is no “Shamilat Deh” or it is inadequate, consolidation
authorities shall apply a pro-rata cut on the holdings of proprietors and
reserve land for the Gram Panchayat and for other common purposes -- Land so
created is known as “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” -- Ownership of such land vests in
the proprietors but its management and control vests in a Gram Panchayat --
Land, therefore, cannot be partitioned.
Gram Panchayat, Channo/Mallaheri v. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 241 (P&H DB).
East Punjab Urban Rent
Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949)
Section 13 – Ejectment order --
Conditional order of ejectment, in which the judgment debtor was required to
pay the arrears of rent – Held, principle of natural justice required that
before issuing the warrant of possession, the judgment debtor must had been
heard. Madan Lal v. Nirmal Kumari and
others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 205 (P&H).
Section 13-B, 18-A – Leave to defend
– Eviction of tenant -- Moment application for leave to defend is dismissed,
the order of eviction would follow in terms of provision of Section 13 B of the
Act. Smt. Asha Gupta v. Sudershan Kumar
Rai, 2012(2) L.A.R. 239 (P&H).
Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (29 of 1974)
Section 17, 18,19,21 -- Watercourse
– Procedure of -- Petitioner is not having any water course, moved an
application for carving out a water course to irrigate his fields – On such an
application a draft scheme is required to be framed u/s 17, thereafter the same
is required to be published u/s 18 of the Act -- Thereafter when the scheme is
approved, the same is required to be published u/s 19 of the Act -- In case the
parties are not agreeing then notice of acquisition of land is required to be
given for implementation of the scheme u/s 21 of the Act. Hawa Singh v. Chief Canal Officer/LCU, Haryana Irrigation Department
and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 237 (P&H).
Section 17, 18,19,21 -- Watercourse
– Procedure of – Petitioner was agreeing only to carving out water-course on
the basis of exchange of land adjoining to the land of private respondent
equivalent to the area to be used for carving out water course – Neither the
authorities had proceeded to issue any notice to the petitioner u/s 21 of the
Act nor he has been afforded opportunity to file objections by the DCO u/s
21(2) of the Act -- Authorities have passed the orders for carving out
water-course without following procedure established under the Act -- As such,
the entire process is vitiated and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hawa Singh v. Chief Canal Officer/LCU,
Haryana Irrigation Department and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 237 (P&H).
Indian Easement Act, 1882 (V of 1882)
Section 13 – Easement of necessity –
Adverse possession -- Way from courtyard – Where immovable property passes by operation
of law, the persons from and to whom it so passes are, for the purpose of this
Section, to be deemed, respectively, the transferor and transferee -- Ownership
rights have been acquired by plaintiffs in the house in their possession by
operation of law, i.e., by way of adverse possession -- Hence, it cannot be
said that Section 13 of the Act is not applicable – House in possession of both
the parties are contiguous to each other -- No other way for going through the
cattle shed except by passing through the courtyard of plaintiff and defendant
has been using as such for the last 40-45 years – Defendant has not acquired
easement of prescription, he has acquired easement of necessity. Hari Singh and others v. Jaswant Singh,
2012(2) L.A.R. 212 (P&H).
Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925)
Section 63 – Will – Execution of --
Presence of beneficiary – Effect of -- Fact that the appellant/beneficiary was
present at the time of execution of Will and that the testator did not give
anything to others from his share in the joint family property are not decisive
of the issue relating to genuineness or validity of the Will. Mahesh Kumar (Dead) By L.Rs. v. Vinod Kumar
and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 221 (SC).
Section 63 – Will -- Second Will --
Recital of previous Will – Cancellation of – Requirement of -- Absence of a
categorical recital in Will that the earlier Will was cancelled is not relevant
because once the execution of the second Will is held as duly proved, the
earlier Will automatically becomes redundant because the second Will represents
the last wish of the testator. Mahesh
Kumar (Dead) By L.Rs. v. Vinod Kumar and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 221 (SC).
Section 63 – Will – Share to one son
– Validity of -- One son had separated
from the family in 1965 after taking his share and other son also got his share
in the 2nd partition which took place in 1985 -- Neither of them bothered to
look after the parents in their old age -- Attitude of sons left parents with
no choice but to live with the appellant/other son who along with his wife and
children took care of the old parents and looked after them during their
illness -- Therefore, there was nothing unnatural or unusual in the decision of
Father to give his share in the joint family property to the appellant -- Any person
of ordinary prudence would have adopted the same course and would not have
given anything to the ungrateful children from his / her share in the property.
Mahesh Kumar (Dead) By L.Rs. v. Vinod
Kumar and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 221 (SC).
Section 63 – Will Attesting Witness
– Capacity of -- Mere fact that Attesting witness lives at a distance of about
four furlong from the house of father in law of the appellant/beneficiary has
no bearing on the issue relating to validity of the Will. Mahesh Kumar (Dead) By L.Rs. v. Vinod Kumar and others, 2012(2) L.A.R.
221 (SC).
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894)
Section 3(f) – Public purpose --
Public purpose for which the land is acquired can always be changed to another
public purpose by the State Government for optimum utilization of the land --
Requirements of the community keep on varying -- Schemes can be varied to meet
the changing needs of the public. Jagtar
Singh etc. v. State of Punjab etc., 2012(2) L.A.R. 170 (P&H DB).
Section 4, 5-A, 6 -- Acquisition of
houses – Development of infrastructure or industrialization -- Majority of
people spend their lifetime savings for building a small house so that their
families may be able to live with a semblance of dignity -- Therefore, it is
wholly unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable to deprive such persons of their
houses by way of the acquisition of land in the name of development of
infrastructure or industrialisation. Raghbir
Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 130 (SC).
Section 4, 5-A, 6 – Acquisition of
land -- Object of Objections u/s 5-A – Natural justice -- Before any person is
deprived of his land by way of compulsory acquisition, he must get an
opportunity to oppose the decision of the State Government and/or its
agencies/instrumentalities to acquire the particular parcel of land -- Objector
can make an effort to convince the Land Acquisition Collector to make
recommendation against the acquisition of his land -- He can also point out
that land proposed to be acquired is not suitable for the purpose specified in
the notification issued u/s 4(1) -- Not only this, he can produce evidence to
show that another piece of land is available and the same can be utilized for
execution of the particular project or scheme -- Collector should give a fair
opportunity of hearing to the objector and objectively consider his plea
against the acquisition of land -- Only thereafter, he should make
recommendations supported by brief reasons as to why the particular piece of
land should or should not be acquired and whether or not the plea put forward
by the objector merits acceptance -- Recommendations made by the Collector must
reflect objective application of mind to the objections filed by the landowners
and other interested persons. Raghbir
Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 130 (SC).
Section 4, 5-A, 6, 9, 11 -- Acquisition of land – Notice of – Non-serving
of – Effect of -- Notices were delivered to some of the landowners, who
acknowledged the receipt thereof, however, the notices issued to the appellant
and his wife were not served upon them -- Land Acquisition Collector proceeded
to decide the objections by assuming that the notice has been delivered to all
the objectors – Appellant had not been given opportunity of hearing as per the
mandate of Section 5A(2) -- Acquisition of his land is declared illegal and
quashed. Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State
of Haryana and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 130 (SC).
Section 4, 6 – Publication of
notification -- Requirement of publication of notification in the Official
Gazette and two local newspapers is mandatory -- Not only this, the Collector
is under an obligation to ensure that public notice of the substance of such
notification is given at convenient places in the locality. Lalrinvenga (Dead) Through L.Rs. and another v. State of Mizoram and others,
2012(2) L.A.R. 188 (SC).
Section 4, 6 – Publication of
notification – Proof of -- High Court upheld the acquisition of land by
assuming that notification issued u/s 4(1) must have been published in the
Official Gazette because the declaration issued under Section 6 was published
in the Official Gazette -- Approach of the High Court was clearly erroneous --
Question whether the notification issued u/s 4(1) was published in the Official
Gazette is a question of fact and such question cannot be decided on
assumptions and conjectures or inferences. Lalrinvenga
(Dead) Through L.Rs. and another v. State of Mizoram and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 188 (SC).
Section 4, 6 – Publication of
notification – Proof of -- Whenever the acquisition of land is challenged on
the ground that the notification has not been published as per the mandate of
the statute, the authority defending the acquisition is under an obligation to
produce evidence in the form of documents to prove that the requirement of
publication has been complied. Lalrinvenga
(Dead) Through L.Rs. and another v. State of Mizoram and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 188 (SC).
Section 4, 6, 16 -- Acquisition of
land – Possession of – Meaning of – Rojnamcha Vakyati -- Entries in
Girdawari/Record of cultivation shows appellant in possession – Genuineness and
correctness of the entries contained in the Girdawaris is not questioned –
Therefore, no reason to disbelieve or discard the same -- Rojnamcha Vakyati
prepared by Sadar Kanungo and three Patwaris showing delivery of possession to
Senior Manager (IA), HSIIDC, which is a self serving document, cannot be made
basis for recording a finding that possession of the acquired land had been
taken by the concerned revenue authorities -- Crops were standing on several
parcels of land, possession thereof could not have been taken without giving
notice to the landowners -- It was humanly impossible to give notice to large
number of persons on the same day and take actual possession of land total
measuring 214 Acres 5 Kanals and 2 Marlas – Held, record prepared by the
revenue authorities showing delivery of possession of the acquired land to
HSIIDC has no legal sanctity -- High Court committed serious error by
dismissing the writ petition on the specious ground that possession of the
acquired land had been taken and the same vested in the State Government in
terms of Section 16. Raghbir Singh
Sehrawat v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 130 (SC).
Section 4, 6, 16 -- Acquisition of
land – Public purpose -- Some people set up small industrial unit after seeking
permission from the competent authority -- Before acquiring private land the
State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities should, as far as possible, use
land belonging to the State for the specified public purposes -- If the
acquisition of private land becomes absolutely necessary, then too, the
concerned authorities must strictly comply with the relevant statutory
provisions and the rules of natural justice. Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(2) L.A.R.
130 (SC).
Periphery policy declared by the State of Punjab on 20th January 2006
Punjab New Capital (Periphery)
Control Act, 1952 (1 of 1953), Section 4, 5, 6 -- Punjab Regional and Town
Planning and Development Act, 1995 (11 of 1995), Section 70, 75,76, 78, 79 –
Chandigarh Periphery -- Controlled area – Planning area -- Two statues instead
of confronting each other actually complement each other in their respective
applications -- Periphery Control Act does not contemplate a complete embargo
on the raising of construction in the periphery -- Periphery Control Act and
the policy framed thereunder has to abide by some norms of planning which are
contemplated by the provisions of the 1995 Act -- Therefore, no reason why the
provisions of the said enactment i.e. the 1995 Act should be held to be
inapplicable to the areas covered by the Periphery Control Act -- Object behind
enactment of the two statues would be best served if both the enactments are
allowed to prevail in the peripheral areas and even beyond such areas. Aalok Jagga v. Union of India and others,
2012(2) L.A.R. 146 (P&H DB).
Punjab New Capital (Periphery)
Control Act, 1952 (1 of 1953), Section 4, 5, 6 -- Punjab Regional and Town
Planning and Development Act, 1995 (11 of 1995), Section 70, 75,76, 78, 79 –
Chandigarh Periphery -- Controlled area – Planning area -- Periphery of
Chandigarh which initially comprised of villages may have essentially lost its
rural character and these villages have become a source of cheap and affordable
housing to those who cannot afford to bear the expenses of the city --
Periphery Policy, therefore, rightly takes into consideration the changing
ground realities which are never static like shifting stands -- Provisions of
the 1995 Act, the Periphery Control Act and the Periphery Policy converge on
the need for a planned integrated development of the city, its periphery and
its adjoining areas -- Periphery Control Act as well as the 1995 Act should be
given strict effect to ensure regulated development in the peripheral area as
well as in the immediate vicinity of such area. Aalok Jagga v. Union of India and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 146 (P&H
DB).
Punjab New Capital (Periphery)
Control Act, 1952 (1 of 1953), Section 4, 5, 6 -- Punjab Regional and Town
Planning and Development Act, 1995 (11 of 1995), Section 70, 75,76, 78, 79 –
Chandigarh Periphery -- Controlled area – Planning area -- Housing project –
Approval of -- Ecological concerns – Duty of officials -- Insofar as the provisions
of the Environment (Protection) Act and the Wild Life (Protection) Act are
concerned, it need not be emphasized that every project attracting the
provisions of the Periphery Control Act and/or the provisions of the 1995 Act
must satisfy the ecological concerns of the area in the light of the provisions
of the two statues in question -- Authorities by provisions of the said Acts
which cast on such authorities a duty to interdict any project or activity
which even remotely seems to create an imbalance in the pristine ecology and
environment of the area on which the city of Chandigarh is situated or for that
matter in the immediate vicinity thereof. Aalok
Jagga v. Union of India and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 146 (P&H DB).
Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898 (1 of
1898)
Section 15, 17 – Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994),
Section 10, 16, 20(5), 87 – Suspension/ Removal/Death of Sarpanch –
Substitution of functionaries -- Authorised Panch – Power of -- Suspension of
Sarpanch does not mean that entire development works of the village shall not
be allowed to proceed with -- Authorised Panch can spend money for the
development work in the village as per valid resolution and prevailing law
during the period Sarpanch remains suspended or post of Sarpanch remains
unfilled due to suspension, removal or death of elected Sarpanch. Jeet Singh Panch v. State of Punjab and
others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 252 (P&H).
Section 15, 17 – Punjab Panchayati
Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 10, 16, 20(5), 87 – Suspension/ Removal/Death
of Sarpanch – Substitution of functionaries -- Authorised Panch – Power of --
All the duties and functions to be performed by the office of the Sarpanch
shall also be performed by the authorised Panch having charge of the office of
the Sarpanch -- Every authorised Panch to officiate the office of Sarpanch
shall have same powers for the period he remains in the office, which usually
can be exercised by the Sarpanch. Jeet
Singh Panch v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 252 (P&H).
Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887)
Section 111, 116, 121 – Partition of
land – Mode of partition -- Quality of land and possession – Mode of partition,
provides that the partition be made keeping in view the quality of land and the
possession at the spot -- Land abutting the road, which was in possession of
the appellants, has been equally divided among the co-sharers -- Merely because
the appellants were in possession of the said land, they cannot be given the
entire land on the road, because as per the mode of partition, the partition
was to be effected while taking into account the quality of the land also. Hardeva and Another v. State of Haryana
and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 243 (P&H DB).
Punjab Land Revenue Rules
Rule
15 – Appointment of Lambardar -- Appellant had encroached upon street adjoining
his house, though the encroachment stood removed yet it did not behove a person
who was seeking appointment as Lambardar -- Even he allowed his tenant to
resort to theft of canal water – Private respondent out scored the appellant on
account of gaining experience regarding working of the Lambardar from his uncle
on account of whose death the post had fallen vacant – Order of Collector
appointing private respondent as Lambardar upheld. Dilbag Singh
v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 247 (P&H DB).
Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar
-- Mere fact that the fore-fathers of the appellant had remained Lambardar of
the village is no ground to consider the candidature of the appellant in
preference to private respondent.
Harinder Singh v. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala and others, 2012(2) L.A.R.
250 (P&H DB).
Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar –
Comparative merits – Age – Education -- Age
of the private respondent was 23 years, whereas the appellant was about 42 years
-- Though the appellant have passed higher secondary and private respondent was
only 10th class pass yet the candidature of private respondent had been
supported by more persons from the village and Sub Divisional
Magistrate-cum-Assistant Collector 1st Grade, the Tehsildar-cum-Assistant
Collector Grade II, and Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector Grade II, had
recommended the candidature of respondent No.4 -- Appointment of private
respondent as a Lambardar upheld. Harinder
Singh v. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 250
(P&H DB).
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (3 of 1911)
Section 61 – Water tax – Imposition
of – Legality of -- Municipal Committee cannot derive any authority and
jurisdiction to impose tax in the nature of water tax which the legislature in
its wisdom had specifically deleted from the statutory provisions of the Act. Municipal Committee, Abohar v. Surinder
Mohan Ahuja, 2012(2) L.A.R. 219 (P&H).
Section 61, 86 – Water tax –
Imposition of – Legality of -- Jurisdiction of civil Court -- When the very
legality and jurisdiction of the authority to impose and recover tax is under
question -- Jurisdiction of the Civil Court would not be barred. Municipal Committee, Abohar v. Surinder
Mohan Ahuja, 2012(2) L.A.R. 219 (P&H).
Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control
Act, 1952 (1 of 1953)
Section 4, 5, 6 -- Punjab Regional
and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (11 of 1995), Section 70, 75,76,
78, 79 – Periphery policy declared by the State of Punjab on 20th January 2006
– Chandigarh Periphery -- Controlled area – Planning area -- Two statues
instead of confronting each other actually complement each other in their
respective applications -- Periphery Control Act does not contemplate a
complete embargo on the raising of construction in the periphery -- Periphery
Control Act and the policy framed thereunder has to abide by some norms of
planning which are contemplated by the provisions of the 1995 Act -- Therefore,
no reason why the provisions of the said enactment i.e. the 1995 Act should be
held to be inapplicable to the areas covered by the Periphery Control Act --
Object behind enactment of the two statues would be best served if both the
enactments are allowed to prevail in the peripheral areas and even beyond such
areas. Aalok Jagga v. Union of India and
others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 146 (P&H DB).
Section 4, 5, 6 -- Punjab Regional
and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (11 of 1995), Section 70, 75,76,
78, 79 – Periphery policy declared by the State of Punjab on 20th January 2006
– Chandigarh Periphery -- Controlled area – Planning area -- Periphery of
Chandigarh which initially comprised of villages may have essentially lost its
rural character and these villages have become a source of cheap and affordable
housing to those who cannot afford to bear the expenses of the city --
Periphery Policy, therefore, rightly takes into consideration the changing
ground realities which are never static like shifting stands -- Provisions of
the 1995 Act, the Periphery Control Act and the Periphery Policy converge on
the need for a planned integrated development of the city, its periphery and
its adjoining areas -- Periphery Control Act as well as the 1995 Act should be
given strict effect to ensure regulated development in the peripheral area as
well as in the immediate vicinity of such area. Aalok Jagga v. Union of India and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 146 (P&H
DB).
Section 1 – Chandigarh Periphery --
Term 10 miles – Interpretation of --Term “adjacent to” would necessarily imply
an area within 10 miles of the boundary and also beyond it -- Any other
interpretation can result in horrendous situation where there is planned growth
within an area of 10 miles but immediately beyond the said limit there is
unplanned development. Aalok Jagga v.
Union of India and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 146 (P&H DB).
Section 4, 5, 6 -- Punjab Regional
and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (11 of 1995), Section 70, 75,76,
78, 79 – Periphery policy declared by the State of Punjab on 20th January 2006
– Chandigarh Periphery -- Controlled area – Planning area -- Housing project –
Approval of -- Ecological concerns – Duty of officials -- Insofar as the
provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act and the Wild Life (Protection)
Act are concerned, it need not be emphasized that every project attracting the
provisions of the Periphery Control Act and/or the provisions of the 1995 Act
must satisfy the ecological concerns of the area in the light of the provisions
of the two statues in question -- Authorities by provisions of the said Acts
which cast on such authorities a duty to interdict any project or activity
which even remotely seems to create an imbalance in the pristine ecology and
environment of the area on which the city of Chandigarh is situated or for that
matter in the immediate vicinity thereof. Aalok
Jagga v. Union of India and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 146 (P&H DB).
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of
1994)
Section 10, 16, 20(5), 87 – Punjab
General Clauses Act, 1898 (1 of 1898), Section 15, 17 – Suspension/ Removal/Death
of Sarpanch – Substitution of functionaries -- Authorised Panch – Power of --
All the duties and functions to be performed by the office of the Sarpanch
shall also be performed by the authorised Panch having charge of the office of
the Sarpanch -- Every authorised Panch to officiate the office of Sarpanch
shall have same powers for the period he remains in the office, which usually
can be exercised by the Sarpanch. Jeet
Singh Panch v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 252 (P&H).
Section 10, 16, 20(5), 87 – Punjab
General Clauses Act, 1898 (1 of 1898), Section 15, 17 – Suspension/ Removal/Death of Sarpanch –
Substitution of functionaries -- Authorised Panch – Power of -- Suspension of
Sarpanch does not mean that entire development works of the village shall not
be allowed to proceed with -- Authorised Panch can spend money for the
development work in the village as per valid resolution and prevailing law
during the period Sarpanch remains suspended or post of Sarpanch remains
unfilled due to suspension, removal or death of elected Sarpanch. Jeet Singh Panch v. State of Punjab and
others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 252 (P&H).
Punjab Regional and Town Planning and
Development Act, 1995 (11 of 1995)
Section 70, 75,76, 78, 79 – Punjab
New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 (1 of 1953), Section 4, 5, 6 --
Periphery policy declared by the State of Punjab on 20th January 2006 –
Chandigarh Periphery -- Controlled area – Planning area -- Two statues instead
of confronting each other actually complement each other in their respective
applications -- Periphery Control Act does not contemplate a complete embargo
on the raising of construction in the periphery -- Periphery Control Act and
the policy framed thereunder has to abide by some norms of planning which are contemplated
by the provisions of the 1995 Act -- Therefore, no reason why the provisions of
the said enactment i.e. the 1995 Act should be held to be inapplicable to the
areas covered by the Periphery Control Act -- Object behind enactment of the
two statues would be best served if both the enactments are allowed to prevail
in the peripheral areas and even beyond such areas. Aalok Jagga v. Union of India and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 146 (P&H
DB).
Section 70, 75,76, 78, 79 – Punjab
New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 (1 of 1953), Section 4, 5, 6 --
Periphery policy declared by the State of Punjab on 20th January 2006 –
Chandigarh Periphery -- Controlled area – Planning area -- Periphery of
Chandigarh which initially comprised of villages may have essentially lost its
rural character and these villages have become a source of cheap and affordable
housing to those who cannot afford to bear the expenses of the city --
Periphery Policy, therefore, rightly takes into consideration the changing
ground realities which are never static like shifting stands -- Provisions of
the 1995 Act, the Periphery Control Act and the Periphery Policy converge on
the need for a planned integrated development of the city, its periphery and
its adjoining areas -- Periphery Control Act as well as the 1995 Act should be
given strict effect to ensure regulated development in the peripheral area as
well as in the immediate vicinity of such area. Aalok Jagga v. Union of India and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 146 (P&H
DB).
Section 70, 75,76, 78, 79 – Punjab
New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 (1 of 1953), Section 4, 5, 6 --
Periphery policy declared by the State of Punjab on 20th January 2006 –
Chandigarh Periphery -- Controlled area – Planning area -- Housing project –
Approval of -- Ecological concerns – Duty of officials -- Insofar as the
provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act and the Wild Life (Protection)
Act are concerned, it need not be emphasized that every project attracting the
provisions of the Periphery Control Act and/or the provisions of the 1995 Act
must satisfy the ecological concerns of the area in the light of the provisions
of the two statues in question -- Authorities by provisions of the said Acts
which cast on such authorities a duty to interdict any project or activity
which even remotely seems to create an imbalance in the pristine ecology and
environment of the area on which the city of Chandigarh is situated or for that
matter in the immediate vicinity thereof. Aalok
Jagga v. Union of India and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 146 (P&H DB).
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961
(18 of 1961)
Section 11 (Punjab) -- East Punjab
Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of
1948), Section 42 -- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of
Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, Rule 16 -- Jumla Mushtarka Malkan -- Bachat Land --
“Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” is neither “Bachat Land” nor are the two expressions,
'synonymous' or 'interchangeable' -- Jumla Mushtarka Malkan land cannot be
partitioned or distributed amongst proprietors as it is reserved for common
purposes -- Bachat Land, on the other hand, is land left over, after reserving
land for the Gram Panchayat and for other common purposes and is generally
redistributed amongst proprietors at the time of consolidation – Private
respondents may, however, approach the Collector, u/s 11 of the Punjab Village
Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, for adjudication of any plea that this
land was not reserved for common purposes and is wrongly reserved as “Jumla
Mushtarka Malkan”. Gram Panchayat,
Channo/Mallaheri v. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab
and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 241 (P&H DB).
Section 2(g) – Shamilat deh –
Makbuja Malkan -- Expression “Makbuja Malkan” denotes the possession of the
proprietary body in common with no particular co-sharer being in possession of
any part of the land, much less in “cultivating possession” -- Sections
2(g)(iii) and 2(g)(viii) of the 1961 Act exclude land from Shamilat Deh, if it
is proved that it is in “cultivating possession”, pursuant to a partition or in
“cultivating possession” as a co-sharer -- Appellate authority has committed an
error in holding that as the expression “Makbuja Malkan” denotes cultivating
possession, it is sufficient to exclude land from Shamilat Deh. Gram Panchayat Balbera v. Director Village
Development and Panchayat Punjab and another,
2012(2) L.A.R. 244 (P&H DB).
Section 2(g) – Shamilat deh --
Jamabandi for the year 1941-42, records the possession of “Makbuja Malkan” –
Private respondent was required to produce revenue record to show that the land
in dispute was in “cultivating possession” of his forefathers prior to
26.1.1950 whether pursuant to a partition amongst proprietors or pursuant to an
arrangement amongst co-sharers – Appellate authority has committed an error in
holding that as the expression “Makbuja Malkan” denotes cultivating possession,
it is sufficient to exclude land from Shamilat Deh. Gram Panchayat Balbera v. Director
Village Development and Panchayat Punjab and another, 2012(2) L.A.R. 244 (P&H DB).
Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908)
Section 17(1A), 49 – Specific Relief
Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10 -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of
1882), Section 53-A – Agreement to sell – Registration of – Unregistered
document -- There is no bar as per Section 17(1A) to seek the decree of
specific performance of contract in respect of an unregistered contract of
sale. Didar Singh v. Nasib Kaur and
others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 198 (P&H).
Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963)
Section 10 -- Registration Act, 1908
(16 of 1908), Section 17(1A), 49 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882),
Section 53-A – Agreement to sell – Registration of – Unregistered document --
There is no bar as per Section 17(1A) to seek the decree of specific
performance of contract in respect of an unregistered contract of sale. Didar Singh v. Nasib Kaur and others,
2012(2) L.A.R. 198 (P&H).
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)
Section 10 – Sale deed – Use of land
– Condition of -- University purchased land from landowners -- Mere change of
purpose does not entitle the land owners to dispute the sale deeds -- In terms
of Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, any condition in respect
of use of land is void – University transfer the land to PUDA for carving out
the plots – Landowners, who have parted with their land and accepted
compensation more than a decade earlier cannot be permitted to dispute the
transfer of land. Jagtar Singh etc. v.
State of Punjab etc., 2012(2) L.A.R. 170 (P&H DB).
Section 53-A – Registration Act,
1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17(1A), 49 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963),
Section 10 -- Agreement to sell – Registration of – Unregistered document --
There is no bar as per Section 17(1A) to seek the decree of specific
performance of contract in respect of an unregistered contract of sale. Didar Singh v. Nasib Kaur and others,
2012(2) L.A.R. 198 (P&H).
********
Publisher’s Note
Although
every care has been taken in the publication of Local Acts Reporter, the editor,
the publisher, the distributors and the printer shall not be responsible for
any loss or damage caused to any person on account of error or omissions, which
might have crept in. It is suggested that to avoid any doubt, and while relying
upon matter published, the reader should cross check all the facts, laws and
contents of the publication with the Govt. Gazette, original Government
Publication, Notifications and certified copy of the judgments passed by the
different courts etc.
The sale and circulation of Local Acts Reporter is
subject to the aforesaid terms and conditions.
No comments:
Post a Comment