Allotment of land

Allotment of land

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (For Punjab) -- Shamlat deh -- Allotment in favour of the vendors of the petitioners was made prior to 09.07.1985 -- Such allotment is protected by virtue of amendment inserted vide Punjab Act No.8 of 1995 -- However, the question whether the allotment is actuated by fraud or misrepresentation, it shall be open to the Panchayat or such other competent authority to take such remedy as is permissible on any legally permissible grounds, but till such time the allotments are set aside, it cannot be said that the sales in favour of the petitioners are not protected by the aforesaid Act. Amarjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 40 (P&H DB).

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (For Punjab) -- Shamlat deh -- Sales effected prior to the judgment in Malwinder Singh’s case, AIR 1985 SC 1394 have been protected by virtue of amendment inserted vide Punjab Act No.8 of 1995 -- Since the vendors of the petitioners have been allotted land prior to 09.07.1985 i.e. the date of judgment in Malwinder Singh’s case (supra), therefore, the petitioners being vendee of vendors, whose allotment is protected, are entitled to the possession of the land so purchased. Amarjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 40 (P&H DB).

Allotment of land

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Shamilat  deh -- Sales effected prior to the judgment in Malwinder Singh’s case, AIR 1985 SC 1394 have been protected by virtue of amendment inserted vide Punjab Act No.8 of 1995 -- Since the vendors of the petitioners have been allotted land prior to 09.07.1985 i.e. the date of judgment in Malwinder Singh’s case (supra), therefore, the petitioners being vendee of vendors, whose allotment is protected, are entitled to the possession of the land so purchased. Amarjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2011(2) L.A.R. 669 (P&H DB).

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Shamilat deh -- Allotment in favour of the vendors of the petitioners was made prior to 09.07.1985 -- Such allotment is protected by virtue of amendment inserted vide Punjab Act No.8 of 1995 -- However, the question whether the allotment is actuated by fraud or misrepresentation, it shall be open to the Panchayat or such other competent authority to take such remedy as is permissible on any legally permissible grounds, but till such time the allotments are set aside, it cannot be said that the sales in favour of the petitioners are not protected by the aforesaid Act. Amarjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2011(2) L.A.R. 669 (P&H DB).

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(5)(ii)(a) (as inserted by Haryana Act No.13 of 1996) – Non-payment of installments – Applicability of Section 2(g)(5)(ii)(a) -- As per the Government Instructions, the petitioner was required to make the installments towards the balance amount in 15 half yearly equal installments which were to start after two harvests from the date of the delivery of the physical possession – Petitioner failed to make the installments inspite of having taken over the actual physical possession of the land and being aware of the fact that the earnest money as well as the land was liable to be forfeited – Order was passed forfeiting the amount and also resuming the land on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited the overdue installments -- Contention of the petitioner that the land was required to revert back to him as the same was allotted to him prior to 1985, need not to be gone into. Mohinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 596 (P&H).

Allotment of land

Cancellation of – Purchase of excess land – Non-payment of – Notice – Requirement of -- On the reference made by the Tehsildar (Sales), the allotment of excess land was cancelled by the Chief Settlement Commissioner -- In regard to excess land measuring 2.15 standard acres by the Secretary Rehabilitation, the allottee was allowed to purchase the excess land at the rate fixed by the department -- Neither the allottee nor his Lr’s moved any application for purchasing the excess land nor amount was deposited nor any steps were taken to get the same transferred in their name -- They slept over the matter for more than 30 years -- In that eventuality, it cannot possibly be saith that the allotment of excess land was cancelled, without issuing any notice -- On the other hand, it was the allottee, who had waived his right of purchase of land in pursuance of order. Sukhwant Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 640 (P&H).