Acquisition of land

Delay in challenging -- Acquired land was utilized for implementing Residential Scheme -- In the process, the BDA not only incurred huge expenditure but also created third party rights -- Delay of nine years from the date of publication of the declaration issued u/s 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and almost six years from the date of passing of award should have been treated by the High Court as more than sufficient for denying equitable relief. Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 645 (SC).

Delay in challenging -- In matters involving challenge to the acquisition of land for public purpose, delay in filing the writ petition should be viewed seriously and relief is denied to the petitioner if he fails to offer plausible explanation for the delay -- Delay of even few years would be fatal to the cause of the petitioner, if the acquired land has been partly or wholly utilised for the public purpose. Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 645 (SC).

Development charges -- Market Value – Land was acquired for the construction of bye-pass -- Question of deducting of 40% amount on account of development charges does not arise. Gurdev Singh & others v. State of Haryana, 2011(1) L.A.R. 59 (P&H).

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Award not passed within 2 years – Effect of -- State Government had acquired the land by issuing notification u/s 4 read with Section 17(1) and (4), which was followed by a declaration issued u/s 6(1) read with Section 17(1) -- Concerned revenue authorities took possession of the acquired land, which has already been utilized for implementing Residential Scheme – Once it is held that possession of the acquired land was handed over to the BDA, the view taken by the High Court that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to non-compliance of Section 11A cannot be sustained. Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 645 (SC).

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Duties of Collector -- According to Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, the Collector is under an obligation to disburse payment of compensation to the persons interested and entitled thereto according to the award -- In the absence of disbursement for any reason, the compensation is required to be deposited with the reference court  -- Costs of Rs. 10,000/- imposed as the mandatory provisions of Section 31 (1) and (2) of the 1894 Act have been violated. Onkar Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 315 (P&H DB).

Land in question belongs to the proprietory body of the village, which is not being used for village common purposes -- In Jamabandi of village for the year 1986-87 Mustarka Malkan Munkisam were shown as owner in column No. 4 -- Aforesaid entry appears to have been changed after the amendment effected in the year 1992 in the name of Panchayat Deh -- Petitioner along with other co-owners belonging to the proprietory bodies have got the entries corrected on 10.12.2005 in pursuance to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in Jai Singh’s case 2003(2) RCR 578 – Land Acquisition Collector is directed to disburse the amount of compensation to the petitioners and other co-owners whose land has been acquired alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of taking possession for the first year and @ 15% per annum for the rest of the period till the date of payment. Onkar Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 315 (P&H DB).

Market Value – Belting system -- If a large tract of land is acquired with some lands facing a main road or a national highway and other lands being in the interior, the normal procedure is to value the lands adjacent to the main road at a higher rate and the interior lands which do not have road access, at a lesser rate. Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh etc., 2011(1) L.A.R. 491 (SC).

Market Value – Belting system -- Where a very large tract of land on the outskirts of a town is acquired, one end of the acquired lands adjoining the town boundary, the other end being two to three kilometres away, obviously, the rate that is adopted for the land nearest to the town cannot be adopted for the land which is farther away from the town -- In such a situation, what is known as a belting method is adopted and the belt or strip adjacent to the town boundary will be given the highest price, the remotest belt will be awarded the lowest rate, the belts/strips of lands falling in between, will be awarded gradually reducing rates from the highest to the lowest. Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh etc., 2011(1) L.A.R. 491 (SC).

Market Value – Market value of the adjacent land generally go up, therefore, post notification transaction may not be a sound criterion to determine and assess the value of the acquired land. A. Natesam Pillai v. Spl. Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy, 2011(1) L.A.R. 49 (SC).

Market Value – Potential value – A prospective purchaser would only be too willing to pay for the acquired land having immediate potentiality of being used as a residential site in a prime locale at almost the same, if not, higher price than the land covered which is located outside the Municipality area. A. Natesam Pillai v. Spl. Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy, 2011(1) L.A.R. 49 (SC).

Market Value – Potential value -- Acquired land is located within the M.C. limit -- Acquired land, being in the heart of the city and having excellent prospects of being used as residential site, definitely has an edge regarding the potential value -- Building potentiality of acquired land must also be taken into consideration while determining compensation. A. Natesam Pillai v. Spl. Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy, 2011(1) L.A.R. 49 (SC).

Market Value – Potential value – Potentiality of the acquired land, reasonably capable of being put in the immediate or near future, must be given due consideration -- Acquired land has all the potentiality to be used as building sites, even in the immediate future, as it is located at a place in and around which building activity has already started -- Acquired land is abutting the main road and is also surrounded by schools, Panchayat union office, shops and residential building in all three sides -- Deduction due to the small size of the exemplar land can easily be set off with the corresponding increase in price of the acquired land from the point of view of potential value. A. Natesam Pillai v. Spl. Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy, 2011(1) L.A.R. 49 (SC).

Market Value – Question whether the acquired lands have to be valued uniformly at the same rate, or whether different areas in the acquired lands have to be valued at different rates, depends upon the extent of the land acquired, the location, proximity to an access road/Main Road/Highway or to a City/Town/Village, and other relevant circumstances. Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh etc., 2011(1) L.A.R. 491 (SC).

Market Value – Sale transaction relied was one year prior to notification u/s 4 of the Act – Held, market value requires to be increased by 12% in view of the fact that the preliminary notification was one year after the relied upon sale transaction. Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh etc., 2011(1) L.A.R. 491 (SC).

Market Value – Uniform rates – When a small and compact extent of land is acquired and the entire area is similarly situated, it will be appropriate to value the acquired land at a single uniform rate. Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh etc., 2011(1) L.A.R. 491 (SC).

Market Value – Uniform rates – Where a very large tract of land with a radius of one to two kilometres is acquired, but the entire land acquired is far away from any town or city limits, without any special Main road access, then it is logical to award the entire land, one uniform rate -- The fact that the distance between one point to another point in the acquired lands, may be as much as two to three kilometres may not make any difference. Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh etc., 2011(1) L.A.R. 491 (SC).

Possession of land – Action of the concerned State authorities to go to the spot and prepare panchnama showing delivery of possession was sufficient for recording a finding that actual possession of the entire acquired land had been taken. Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 645 (SC).

Possession of land – Procedure explained for possession – (i) No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what act would constitute taking of possession of the acquired land -- ii) If the acquired land is vacant, the act of the concerned State authority to go to the spot and prepare a panchnama will ordinarily be treated as sufficient to constitute taking of possession -- iii) If crop is standing on the acquired land or building/structure exists, mere going on the spot by the concerned authority will, by itself, be not sufficient for taking possession. Ordinarily, in such cases, the concerned authority will have to give notice to the occupier of the building/structure or the person who has cultivated the land and take possession in the presence of independent witnesses and get their signatures on the panchnama. Of course, refusal of the owner of the land or building/structure may not lead to an inference that the possession of the acquired land has not been taken -- iv) If the acquisition is of a large tract of land, it may not be possible for the acquiring/designated authority to take physical possession of each and every parcel of the land and it will be sufficient that symbolic possession is taken by preparing appropriate document in the presence of independent witnesses and getting their signatures on such document -- v) If beneficiary of the acquisition is an agency/instrumentality of the State and 80% of the total compensation is deposited in terms of Section 17(3A) and substantial portion of the acquired land has been utilised in furtherance of the particular public purpose, then the Court may reasonably presume that possession of the acquired land has been taken. Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 645 (SC).

Rehabilitation of owners – Requirement of -- Article 300-A of the Constitution rests on the doctrine of eminent domain and guarantees a constitutional right against deprivation of property save by authority of law – It mandates that to be valid the deprivation of property must be by authority of law – Neither Article 300-A of the Constitution nor the Land Acquisition Act make any measures for rehabilitation of the expropriated owners a condition precedent for compulsory acquisition of land -- In the absence of any such obligation arising either under Article 300-A or under any other statutory provision, rehabilitation of the owners cannot be treated as an essential requirement for a valid acquisition of property. Amarjit Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Ors, 2011(1) L.A.R. 470 (SC).

Release of land – Discrimination -- In the process of acquisition, more than half of the land has been ordered to be released from the acquisition, inspite of a very good case for the release of land in favour of the petitioners, their land was kept under acquisition -- Even the land of the petitioners, regarding which, change of land use certificate was granted way back in the year 2000, was also included in declaration issued u/s 6 of the Act -- As per Policy of the State Government, land regarding which such a certificate has been issued cannot be acquired -- Even that Policy was ignored in the case of the petitioners – Held, action taken by the authorities is in complete violation of the principles laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution -- Notifications issued u/s 4 and declaration u/s 6 of the Act are quashed with costs of Rs.2,50,000/-. M/s Sindhu Education Foundation and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 454 (P&H DB).

Urgency provisions of Land Acquisition Act invoked – Challenge to -- Award has been made and out of the 400 land owners more than 370 have already received compensation -- It is also stated that out of the total cost of Rs. 8,85,14,000/- for development of the acquired land, an amount of Rs. 5,28,00,000/- has already been spent by the GDA and more than 60% of work has been completed – Held, It is too late in the day to undo what has already been done – In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants are not entitled to any relief although dispensation of enquiry u/s 5A was not justified. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Urgency provisions of Land Acquisition Act invoked -- Duty of Government -- Government has to apply its mind on the aspect that urgency is of such nature that necessitates dispensation of enquiry under Section 5-A. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Urgency provisions of Land Acquisition Act invoked -- Objections – Right of – Right to file objections makes the provision for compulsory acquisition just and in conformity with the fundamental principles of natural justice -- Exceptional and extraordinary power of doing away with an enquiry u/s 5A is not a routine power -- Upon challenge being made to the use of power u/s 17, the government must produce appropriate material before the court that the opinion for dispensing with the enquiry u/s 5-A has been formed by the government after due application of mind on the material placed before it -- In a case where the opinion is formed regarding the urgency based on considerations not germane to the purpose, the judicial review of such administrative decision may become necessary. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Urgency provisions of Land Acquisition Act invoked -- Presumption of -- Repetition of statutory phrase in the notification that the state government is satisfied that the land specified in the notification is urgently needed and provision contained in Section 5A shall not apply, though may initially raise a presumption in favour of the government that pre-requisite conditions for exercise of such power have been satisfied -- Such presumption may be displaced by the circumstances themselves having no reasonable nexus with the purpose for which power has been exercised. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Urgency provisions of Land Acquisition Act invoked –Challenge to -- Matter hanged from April, 2001 to November 22, 2003/February 20, 2004 before the notifications u/s 4 and for about a year thereafter in issuance of declaration u/s 6 – No material on record indicating the application of mind that the urgency was of such nature which warranted elimination of the enquiry u/s 5A of the Act -- GDA wanted the subject land to be acquired because their land bank had no land and they wanted land to keep the Authority running -- If profit-making and the sustenance of the Development Authority was the motive, surely urgency was not of such nature that it could brook no delay whatsoever -- Government has completely failed to justify the dispensation of an enquiry u/s 5A by invoking Section 17(4) -- Impugned notifications to the extent they state that Section 5A shall not apply suffer from legal infirmity. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Urgency provisions of Land Acquisition Act invoked –Development of an area (for residential purposes) or a planned development of city, takes many years – Held, there is no reason why summary enquiry u/s 5A may not be held and objections of land owners/persons interested may not be considered. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Arrears of Rent

Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 -- Sufficient cause -- Ejectment –Tenant took plea in the written statement that his suit for declaration of occupancy rights in respect of the land had been decreed in his favour by the Assistant Collector and he was not liable to pay rent for the land as a tenant – On appeal by Owner of land, the Collector had remanded the case but the Assistant Collector again decreed the suit -- Owner of land filed an appeal before the Collector, who allowed the appeal  -- Thereafter, the tenant filed an appeal before the Commissioner, which was dismissed – Tenant then moved the Financial Commissioner in revision, which was also dismissed -- In the meanwhile, the tenant deposited the rent in the Treasury – Held, tenant did not pay rent for the land as he was pursuing his claim of occupancy rights in respect of the land and if his claim was finally allowed he would not be liable for rent -- The tenant had, therefore, sufficient cause for not paying the rent for the land and was not liable to be evicted under Section 9(1)(ii) of the 1953 Act. Subhash Chand v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2011(1) L.A.R. 363 (SC).

Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953) -- For ejectment of a tenant under the 1953 Act or for recovery of arrears of rent from a tenant, the procedure laid down in Section 14-A read with Section 10(2) of the Act has to be followed. Subhash Chand v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2011(1) L.A.R. 363 (SC).

Rent Act -- Assessment by Rent Controller – Extension of time –Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the time to make deposit of the amount as assessed by the Rent Controller beyond the period already fixed by the Rent Controller while assessing the rent -- Tenant is bound to make payment, there is no question for extension of time. Sudhir Kumar v. Kuldip Singh Malhotra, 2011(1) L.A.R. 96 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Assessment of provisional rent -- Cheque was tendered, when it was presented by the landlord for the purpose of realization, it was dishonored by the Bank – Plea that there is an error on the part of Rent Controller in not assessing the exact amount, which is to be paid on the first date of hearing, can not be raised in this case -- Once there is a default on the part of the tenant of not depositing the provisional rent on due date as determined by the Rent Controller then the tenant is liable to vacate the demised premises and time cannot be extended in any case. Gurvinder Singh v. Vinayak Bahl, 2011(1) L.A.R. 668 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to order extension of time of payment of provisional rent by the tenant. Mrs. Birinder Khullar v. Maninder Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 496 (P&H).

Rent Act -- Whether the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to further extend time to tender rent in case of disagreement with the tenant on his application regarding re-assessment -- Held, even if it is assumed that the application for re-assessment was a review application, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to grant further time to the tenant for tendering the provisional rent when he did not agree with him on his application for review -- In that circumstance, he was left with no other alternative but to simply dismiss the application. Mrs. Birinder Khullar v. Maninder Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 496 (P&H).

Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972)

Section 2(r), 4, 12 --  Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 19-F -- Surplus land – Purchase of – Vesting of -- Petitioners were given benefit of Government instructions, according to which certain vendees, who had purchased land between the period from 31.7.1958 and 15.4.1966 and who fulfilled the prescribed conditions, were to be given exemption from the surplus pool, though such land was included in the land of the big landowner and was declared surplus under the Punjab Act – Petitioners moved an application in the year 1976, by that time, the land of the petitioners had already been declared surplus in the hands of the big landowner and by virtue of Section 12 (3) of the Haryana Ceiling Act, the said land automatically vested in the State with effect from 24.1.1971 – Held, it was not a case of re-determination of the surplus land, where valuation of the land is to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Act – Financial Commissioner was right, while observing that in that situation, valuation of the land has to be made on the date, the petitioners were granted benefit under those instructions – Provision of Section 19-F of the Punjab Act is not applicable to land of the petitioners. Dalip Singh and others v. Financial Commissioner Haryana, Chandigarh and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 1 (P&H).

Section 8(3), 33 – Punjab Security of Lands Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 2(5-a), 5-C – Permissible area -- Surplus pool – Sale/Transfer of land from surplus pool – Pending of proceedings – Haryana Ceiling Act came in to force – Effect of – If proceedings for determination of the surplus land commenced prior to the enforcement of the 1972 Act, the entire proceedings shall be concluded as per the provisions of the 1953 Act, as if 1972 Act has not been passed -- Section 5(C) of the 1953 Act shall be exercised as if the 1972 Act is not passed -- After exercise of the option pertaining to the permissible land–surplus land, surplus land shall be used by the State government as per the 1972 Act only – Till option is given and accepted, provisions of the 1972 Act would not be applicable, if proceedings for determination of surplus area commenced prior to the enforcement of the 1972 Act -- In the 1953 Act, landholder was not required to include land transferred in the permissible area at the first instance –Provisions of Section 8(3) of the 1972 Act has no application -- Option had to be given as per the old Act and in the old Act, there was no requirement to save the land transferred in the permissible land at the first instance and transferred land could be taken only when area of surplus pool is falling short. Kamla Devi and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 215 (P&H DB).

Section 12(3) – Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 5-A – Surplus area – Finalization of – Purchase application by tenant – Pendency of --  No proceedings in respect of surplus land area of the landowner were pending on the date of death of landowner -- It was only purchase application of the tenants which was pending when Haryana Act came into force – Held, in terms of Section 12(3) of the Haryana Act, the land vests with the State. Shashi Kumar and others v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 556 (P&H DB).

Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (29 of 1974)

Section 18(2) – Water course – Change of chak – Judicial Review -- Authorities while dealing with the issue has clarified that no adverse effect would be caused to irrigation to the land of the petitioners because the size of outlet would be adjusted proportionately – From the existing source, the irrigation to the land of respondent-party has been negligible, by change he would get irrigation -- Orders passed by Authorities do not suffer from any perversity or want of jurisdiction – No violation of any mandatory provision so as to show that the orders have been passed without following due process of law -- No ground for judicial review of the orders passed by the authorities. Nazar Singh & others v. Divisional Canal Officer, Rori Water Services Division, Sirsa & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 229 (P&H).

Section 24 – Water course – Obstruction in -- Petitioner encroached upon the berm of the lined water course while constructing his house on a plot -- Petitioner has also unauthorizedly left a mori and fixed a gargoyle on the roof of house from which water is discharged on the bank of the lined water course -- Said offending act of the petitioner caused damage to the water course outlet which is used for irrigation and cattle drinking purposes -- Authorities have acted within their legal jurisdiction in directing removal of obstruction in smooth use of canal water -- Contention that u/s 24 of the Act, removal of gargoyle could not have been ordered -- Contention rejected. Manohar Singh v. Superintending Canal Officer, Hisar & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 323 (P&H).

Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977)

Section 14, 15 – Land loser/Oustees policy -- Whether HUDA should charge only the actual land cost plus development charges for the plots allotted to oustees/land losers, and not the market price/normal allotment price – Held, where there is a scheme but it does not regulate the allotment price, it may be possible for the court to direct the State Government/Development Authority to allot plots to land losers at a reasonable cost, and in special and extraordinary circumstances, it may also indicate the manner of determining the allotment price -- But where the scheme applicable specifies the price to be charged for allotment, its terms cannot be ignored -- HUDA scheme requires the land loser-allottee to pay the normal allotment rates for the plots to be allotted to them under the scheme -- Land loser cannot claim allotment at acquisition cost of land plus development cost or at any other lesser price. Brij Mohan & others v. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Another, 2011(1) L.A.R. 378 (SC).

Section 14, 15 – Land loser/Oustees policy – Allotment of plot – Price to be charged -- Normal allotment rate – Scheme requires the allottees under the scheme for land-losers/oustees, to pay the normal allotment rates for the allotted plots -- Application for allotment was made in 1990 -- On 9.9.1991, HUDA advertised the residential plots in the sectors developed from the acquired lands for allotment, wherein the allotment rate was shown as Rs.1032 per sq.m. for plots and in the year 1993, price was increased to Rs.1342/- per sq.m. -- Should the land loser who promptly made the application in 1990 be made to suffer, because of the inaction on the part of HUDA in making the allotment – Policy clearly states that “claims of the oustees shall be invited before the sector is floated for sale” – This is also reiterated in the subsequent scheme dated 19.3.1992 – Prices to be charged will be the rate which is equal to the rate that is fixed when the sector was first floated for allotment -- Appellants should therefore be allotted plots under the scheme at the initial price at which the Layout/Sector plots were first offered for sale after the acquisition. Brij Mohan & others v. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Another, 2011(1) L.A.R. 378 (SC).

Hereditary claim

Appointment of Lambardar – As the Collector granted the benefit of hereditary claim to the petitioner and ignored the better qualifications of respondent, the Commissioner rightly set aside the appointment of the petitioner and appointed respondent as the Lambardar. Satish Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 607 (P&H).

Appointment of Lambardar – In Karnail Singh’s case, 1973 PLJ 676 it was held by Division Bench that preferential right to appointment on the basis of his hereditary claim is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution – Findings in Harsharan Singh's case, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 909 that precedence is to be accorded to hereditary claims being contrary to the Division Bench judgment cannot be cited as a binding precedent. Satish Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 607 (P&H).

Appointment of Lambardar -- Petitioner’s father was sarbrah lambardar and his grand-father was a lambardar, but he had no experience of working as a lambardar – Accordingly, petitioner’s inheridatory claim for lambardari was not required to be taken into consideration. Rajinder Singh v. Pipal Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 88 (FC Pb.).

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899)

Section 1 -- Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 – Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (8 of 1975), Section 5 -- Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976, Rule 11-B, 26(2) – Sale of plots – Prevailing practice of permitting transfer of plots before registration of conveyance deed to the allottee is not contrary to the provisions of the Act or the Rules -- There is no provision whatsoever in the Stamp Act or Registration Act imposing any restriction on the assignment or transfer of rights under a sale/purchase agreement by the purchaser to a third party, before the execution of any conveyance deed in respect of any immovable property -- Parties in the agreement had agreed for the substitution of the name of allottees at the sole discretion of the owner -- Director has no power under the Act or the Rules to issue any such direction altogether prohibiting such nomination of another person thereby substituting the allottee. DLF Universal Ltd. & Another v. Director, T.&C. Planning Haryana & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 338 (SC).

Section 47-A – Allotment/auction sale by State Machinery --  Market value – Stamp duty -- Valuation of – Reference of -- Property offered for sale by a State machinery -- A State or its functionary cannot itself be a party to under valuation -- It is normally to be expected that the property is offered for sale only at the market rate -- Reference to a Collector on the ground of under valuation, is not a mechanical process -- A Registering Officer shall have some basis for coming to a view that the valuation in the document is not reflective of the market price -- Extraordinary situation may be there when the bids are rigged by forming cartels -- In such extreme situations, the Registering Officer may still have a ground to make a reference under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. The Mohali Club, Mohali v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 9 (P&H).

Section 47-A – Punjab Stamp (Dealing of Undervalued Instrument) Rules, 1983, Rule 3-A,3-B – Sale of immovable property – Registration of – Market value – Determination of – Law summarised as follows: a).The Registering Officer, after registration may refer the documentation, for adjudication before the Collector, if he has reason to believe that there is deliberate undervaluation. b). The reference is not a mechanical act but the Registering Officer shall have a basis for coming to a prima facie finding that there is an under valuation. c). The circle rate or the Collector's rate (determined in the State of Punjab in the manner provided under Rule 3-A of the Punjab Stamps (Dealing of Under Valued Instruments) Rules shall afford such basis. d). The circle rate or the Collector's rate shall normally be with reference to the date of execution of sale and registration and not the valuation on the date of agreement or the date of allotment. e). The Registering Officer shall have no need, normally to suspect the valuation relating to the property valuation, when the State or its instrumentalities themselves have determined the market valuation or when the market valuation is best obtained through competitive bidding. f). If the date of auction/allotment and payment of installment are distanced by a long period to the date of execution of sale or registration, the issue of the valuation for the purpose of stamps could be controlled by specific Rules and the contingencies provided under the Rules will have to be strictly applied for taking the benefit under the Rules. The Mohali Club, Mohali v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 9 (P&H).

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894)

Section 3(aa), 3(b), 9 – Acquisition of land by DDA – Local Authority – Person interested -- Award and Compensation -- Right of hearing – DDA falls within the definition of the expressions “local authority” and “person interested” -- D.D.A. was entitled to participate in the proceedings held before the Land Acquisition Collector -- Failure of the Land Acquisition Collector to issue notice to the DDA and give an opportunity to it to adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation payable to the land owners was fatal to the award passed by him -- DDA was entitled to notice and opportunity to adduce evidence before the Reference Court  -- High Court also committed serious error by further enhancing the amount of compensation without requiring impleadment of DDA as respondent -- No notice or opportunity was given to the DDA -- Judgments passed by Reference Court and High Court set aside – Matter remitted back. Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by L.Rs. and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 590 (SC).

Section 4, 5-A, 6, 17 – Acquisition of land – Urgency provisions invoked -- Objections – Right of – Though right to property is no longer fundamental right but Article 300A of the Constitution mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law -- Right to file objections makes the provision for compulsory acquisition just and in conformity with the fundamental principles of natural justice -- Exceptional and extraordinary power of doing away with an enquiry u/s 5A is not a routine power -- Upon challenge being made to the use of power u/s 17, the government must produce appropriate material before the court that the opinion for dispensing with the enquiry u/s 5-A has been formed by the government after due application of mind on the material placed before it -- In a case where the opinion is formed regarding the urgency based on considerations not germane to the purpose, the judicial review of such administrative decision may become necessary. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Section 4, 5-A, 6, 17 – Acquisition of land – Urgency provisions invoked – Presumption of -- Repetition of statutory phrase in the notification that the state government is satisfied that the land specified in the notification is urgently needed and provision contained in Section 5A shall not apply, though may initially raise a presumption in favour of the government that pre-requisite conditions for exercise of such power have been satisfied -- Such presumption may be displaced by the circumstances themselves having no reasonable nexus with the purpose for which power has been exercised. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Section 4, 5-A, 6, 17 – Acquisition of land – Urgency provisions invoked – Development of area – Development of city -- Development of an area (for residential purposes) or a planned development of city, takes many years – Held, there is no reason why summary enquiry u/s 5A may not be held and objections of land owners/persons interested may not be considered. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Section 4, 5-A, 6, 17 – Acquisition of land – Urgency provisions invoked – Duty of Government -- Government has to apply its mind on the aspect that urgency is of such nature that necessitates dispensation of enquiry under Section 5-A. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Section 4, 5-A, 6, 17 –Acquisition of land – Urgency provisions invoked – Challenge to -- Matter hanged from April, 2001 to November 22, 2003/February 20, 2004 before the notifications u/s 4 and for about a year thereafter in issuance of declaration u/s 6 – Held, acquisition proceedings could have been arranged in a manner so as to enable the land owners and/or the interested persons to file their objections u/s 5A within the prescribed time and complete the enquiry expeditiously -- No material on record indicating the application of mind that the urgency was of such nature which warranted elimination of the enquiry u/s 5A of the Act -- GDA wanted the subject land to be acquired because their land bank had no land and they wanted land to keep the Authority running -- If profit-making and the sustenance of the Development Authority was the motive, surely urgency was not of such nature that it could brook no delay whatsoever -- Government has completely failed to justify the dispensation of an enquiry u/s 5A by invoking Section 17(4) -- Impugned notifications to the extent they state that Section 5A shall not apply suffer from legal infirmity. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Section 4, 5-A, 6, 17 –Acquisition of land – Urgency provisions invoked – Challenge to -- Award has been made and out of the 400 land owners more than 370 have already received compensation -- It is also stated that out of the total cost of Rs. 8,85,14,000/- for development of the acquired land, an amount of Rs. 5,28,00,000/- has already been spent by the GDA and more than 60% of work has been completed – Held, It is too late in the day to undo what has already been done – In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants are not entitled to any relief although dispensation of enquiry u/s 5A was not justified. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Section 4, 5-A, 6, 17 –Development of city/residential area – Urgency Provisions invoked – Objections -- Whether in all cases of ‘planned development of the city’ or ‘for the development of residential area’, the power of urgency may be invoked by the government and even where such power is invoked, should the enquiry contemplated u/s 5-A be dispensed with invariably – Court did not think so. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Section 4, 5-A, 6, 17 –Development of city/residential area – Urgency Provisions invoked – Objections -- Whether ‘planned development of city’ or ‘development of residential area’ cannot brook delay of few months to complete the enquiry u/s 5A – Ordinarily it can. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Section 4, 5-A, 6, 17 –Development of city/residential area – Urgency Provisions invoked – Objections -- Government must, do a balancing act and resort to the special power of urgency u/s 17 in the matters of acquisition of land for the public purpose viz.; ‘planned development of city’ or ‘for development of residential area’ in exceptional situation -- Such exceptional situation may be for the public purpose viz., rehabilitation of natural calamity affected persons; rehabilitation of persons uprooted due to commissioning of dam or housing for lower strata of the society urgently; rehabilitation of persons affected by time bound projects, etc. -- List is only illustrative and not exhaustive -- Heavy onus lies on the government to justify exercise of such power – Held, use of the power of urgency and dispensation of enquiry u/s 5A by the government in a routine manner for the ‘planned development of city’ or ‘development of residential area’ and thereby depriving the owner or person interested a very valuable right u/s 5A may not meet the statutory test nor could be readily sustained. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Section 4,6 – Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Acquisition of land – Release of land – Discrimination -- In the process of acquisition, more than half of the land has been ordered to be released from the acquisition, inspite of a very good case for the release of land in favour of the petitioners, their land was kept under acquisition -- Even the land of the petitioners, regarding which, change of land use certificate was granted way back in the year 2000, was also included in declaration issued u/s 6 of the Act -- As per Policy of the State Government, land regarding which such a certificate has been issued cannot be acquired -- Even that Policy was ignored in the case of the petitioners – Held, action taken by the authorities is in complete violation of the principles laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution -- Facts of the case indicate that the common man has been reduced virtually to a zero figure -- The State authorities have shown their utter disregard to the law -- Such an attitude cannot be tolerated – Petition allowed, notifications issued u/s 4 and declaration u/s 6 of the Act are quashed with costs of Rs.2,50,000/-. M/s Sindhu Education Foundation and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 454 (P&H DB).

Section 4,6 – Constitution of India, Article 300-A – Acquisition of land – Rehabilitation of owners – Requirement of -- Article 300-A of the Constitution rests on the doctrine of eminent domain and guarantees a constitutional right against deprivation of property save by authority of law – It mandates that to be valid the deprivation of property must be by authority of law – Property has been acquired in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which is a validly enacted piece of legislation – Neither Article 300-A of the Constitution nor the Land Acquisition Act make any measures for rehabilitation of the expropriated owners a condition precedent for compulsory acquisition of land -- In the absence of any such obligation arising either under Article 300-A or under any other statutory provision, rehabilitation of the owners cannot be treated as an essential requirement for a valid acquisition of property. Amarjit Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Ors, 2011(1) L.A.R. 470 (SC).

Section 4, 6, 9, 31 – Acquisition land – Award – Duties of Collector -- According to Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, the Collector is under an obligation to disburse payment of compensation to the persons interested and entitled thereto according to the award -- In the absence of disbursement for any reason, the compensation is required to be deposited with the reference court -- On both counts the Collector has violated the mandate of Section 31 of the 1894 Act – Costs of Rs. 10,000/- imposed as the mandatory provisions of Section 31 (1) and (2) of the 1894 Act have been violated. Onkar Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 315 (P&H DB).

Section 4, 6, 9 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(4), 7, 13-B (Haryana) – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 18 -- Acquisition of land – Right of Proprietors -- Mustarka Malkan Munkisam land – Right of compensation -- Land in question belongs to the proprietory body of the village, which is not being used for village common purposes -- In Jamabandi of village for the year 1986-87 Mustarka Malkan Munkisam were shown as owner in column No. 4 -- Aforesaid entry appears to have been changed after the amendment effected in the year 1992 in the name of Panchayat Deh -- Petitioner along with other co-owners belonging to the proprietory bodies have got the entries corrected on 10.12.2005 in pursuance to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in Jai Singh’s case 2003(2) RCR 578 – Land Acquisition Collector is directed to disburse the amount of compensation to the petitioners and other co-owners whose land has been acquired alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of taking possession for the first year and @ 15% per annum for the rest of the period till the date of payment. Onkar Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 315 (P&H DB).

Section 4,6, 11, 11-A, 17 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Acquisition of land – Award – Challenge to – Delay in challenging -- Limitation -- Acquired land was utilized for implementing Residential Scheme -- In the process, the BDA not only incurred huge expenditure but also created third party rights -- Delay of nine years from the date of publication of the declaration issued u/s 6(1) and almost six years from the date of passing of award should have been treated by the High Court as more than sufficient for denying equitable relief. Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 645 (SC).

Section 4,6, 11, 11-A, 17 – Acquisition of land – Possession taken by Authority – Award not passed within 2 years – Effect of -- State Government had acquired the land by issuing notification u/s 4 read with Section 17(1) and (4), which was followed by a declaration issued u/s 6(1) read with Section 17(1) -- Concerned revenue authorities took possession of the acquired land, which has already been utilized for implementing Residential Scheme – Once it is held that possession of the acquired land was handed over to the BDA, the view taken by the High Court that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to non-compliance of Section 11A cannot be sustained. Satendra Prasad Jain’s case (1993) 4 SCC 369 relied. Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 645 (SC).

Section 4,6, 17 – Acquisition of land – Challenge to – Delay in challenging -- Effect of -- In matters involving challenge to the acquisition of land for public purpose, delay in filing the writ petition should be viewed seriously and relief is denied to the petitioner if he fails to offer plausible explanation for the delay -- Delay of even few years would be fatal to the cause of the petitioner, if the acquired land has been partly or wholly utilised for the public purpose. Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 645 (SC).

Section 4,6, 16, 17 – Acquisition of land – Possession of land – Procedure explained – (i) No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what act would constitute taking of possession of the acquired land -- ii) If the acquired land is vacant, the act of the concerned State authority to go to the spot and prepare a panchnama will ordinarily be treated as sufficient to constitute taking of possession -- iii) If crop is standing on the acquired land or building/structure exists, mere going on the spot by the concerned authority will, by itself, be not sufficient for taking possession. Ordinarily, in such cases, the concerned authority will have to give notice to the occupier of the building/structure or the person who has cultivated the land and take possession in the presence of independent witnesses and get their signatures on the panchnama. Of course, refusal of the owner of the land or building/structure may not lead to an inference that the possession of the acquired land has not been taken -- iv) If the acquisition is of a large tract of land, it may not be possible for the acquiring/designated authority to take physical possession of each and every parcel of the land and it will be sufficient that symbolic possession is taken by preparing appropriate document in the presence of independent witnesses and getting their signatures on such document -- v) If beneficiary of the acquisition is an agency/instrumentality of the State and 80% of the total compensation is deposited in terms of Section 17(3A) and substantial portion of the acquired land has been utilised in furtherance of the particular public purpose, then the Court may reasonably presume that possession of the acquired land has been taken. Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 645 (SC).

Section 4,6, 16, 17 – Acquisition of land – Possession of land – Action of the concerned State authorities to go to the spot and prepare panchnama showing delivery of possession was sufficient for recording a finding that actual possession of the entire acquired land had been taken and handed over to the BDA -- Utilization of the major portion of the acquired land for the public purpose for which it was acquired is clearly indicative of the fact that actual possession of the acquired land had been taken by the BDA. Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 645 (SC).

Section 4,6,18 – Acquisition of land -- Market Value – Sale deed -- Market value of the adjacent land generally go up, therefore, post notification transaction may not be a sound criterion to determine and assess the value of the acquired land – No evidence to show that the market value of adjacent land has not increased in the interregnum -- Reference Court and the High Court were justified in rejecting these sale deeds from consideration. A. Natesam Pillai v. Spl. Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy, 2011(1) L.A.R. 49 (SC).

Section 4,6,18 – Acquisition of land -- Market Value – Potential value -- Acquired land is located within the M.C. limit -- Acquired land, being in the heart of the city and having excellent prospects of being used as residential site, definitely has an edge regarding the potential value -- Building potentiality of acquired land must also be taken into consideration while determining compensation. A. Natesam Pillai v. Spl. Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy, 2011(1) L.A.R. 49 (SC).

Section 4,6,18 – Acquisition of land -- Market Value – Potential value – Sale deed of small piece of land – Reliance upon -- Potentiality of the acquired land, reasonably capable of being put in the immediate or near future, must be given due consideration -- Acquired land has all the potentiality to be used as building sites, even in the immediate future, as it is located at a place in and around which building activity has already started -- Acquired land is abutting the main road and is also surrounded by schools, Panchayat union office, shops and residential building in all three sides -- Deduction due to the small size of the exemplar land can easily be set off with the corresponding increase in price of the acquired land from the point of view of potential value. A. Natesam Pillai v. Spl. Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy, 2011(1) L.A.R. 49 (SC).

Section 4,6,18 – Acquisition of land -- Market Value – Potential value – A prospective purchaser would only be too willing to pay for the acquired land having immediate potentiality of being used as a residential site in a prime locale at almost the same, if not, higher price than the land covered which is located outside the Municipality area. A. Natesam Pillai v. Spl. Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy, 2011(1) L.A.R. 49 (SC).

Section 11, 15, 18, 23, 24 – Market Value -- Sale-deed is dated 5.11.1993 and the notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on 1.11.1994 -- It was incumbent upon the Court of Reference to take into consideration the sale-deed. Gurdev Singh & others v. State of Haryana, 2011(1) L.A.R. 59 (P&H).

Section 11, 15, 18, 23, 24 – Market Value -- Three sale-deeds exhibited -- Average price of the acquired land comes to Rs.7079/- per Marla -- Sale instances relate to small pieces of land, therefore, 33% cut would be just and appropriate in the given circumstances -- Besides this, the land owners will also be entitled to the statutory sum in accordance with Section 23(1-A) of the Act and 30% more sum in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition as provided under Section 23(2) of the Act and interest as provided under Section 28 of the Act. Gurdev Singh & others v. State of Haryana, 2011(1) L.A.R. 59 (P&H).

Section 11, 15, 18, 23, 24 – Market Value – Development charges -- Land was acquired for the construction of bye-pass -- Question of deducting of 40% amount on account of development charges does not arise. C.R. Nagaraja Shetty’s case 2009(4) RCR 460 relied. Gurdev Singh & others v. State of Haryana, 2011(1) L.A.R. 59 (P&H).

Section 18 – Acquisition of land – Market Value – Uniform rates – Belting system -- Relevant factors -- Question whether the acquired lands have to be valued uniformly at the same rate, or whether different areas in the acquired lands have to be valued at different rates, depends upon the extent of the land acquired, the location, proximity to an access road/Main Road/Highway or to a City/Town/Village, and other relevant circumstances. Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh etc., 2011(1) L.A.R. 491 (SC).

Section 18 – Acquisition of land – Market Value – Uniform rates – When a small and compact extent of land is acquired and the entire area is similarly situated, it will be appropriate to value the acquired land at a single uniform rate. Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh etc., 2011(1) L.A.R. 491 (SC).

Section 18 – Acquisition of land – Market Value – Belting system -- If a large tract of land is acquired with some lands facing a main road or a national highway and other lands being in the interior, the normal procedure is to value the lands adjacent to the main road at a higher rate and the interior lands which do not have road access, at a lesser rate. Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh etc., 2011(1) L.A.R. 491 (SC).

Section 18 – Acquisition of land – Market Value – Belting system -- Where a very large tract of land on the outskirts of a town is acquired, one end of the acquired lands adjoining the town boundary, the other end being two to three kilometres away, obviously, the rate that is adopted for the land nearest to the town cannot be adopted for the land which is farther away from the town -- In such a situation, what is known as a belting method is adopted and the belt or strip adjacent to the town boundary will be given the highest price, the remotest belt will be awarded the lowest rate, the belts/strips of lands falling in between, will be awarded gradually reducing rates from the highest to the lowest. Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh etc., 2011(1) L.A.R. 491 (SC).

Section 18 – Acquisition of land – Market Value – Uniform rates – Where a very large tract of land with a radius of one to two kilometres is acquired, but the entire land acquired is far away from any town or city limits, without any special Main road access, then it is logical to award the entire land, one uniform rate -- The fact that the distance between one point to another point in the acquired lands, may be as much as two to three kilometres may not make any difference. Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh etc., 2011(1) L.A.R. 491 (SC).

Section 18 – Acquisition of land – Market Value – Sale transaction -- Sale transaction relied was one year prior to notification u/s 4 of the Act – Contention that an appropriate increase in market value should have been provided keeping in view steady increase in prices – Held, market value requires to be increased by 12% in view of the fact that the preliminary notification was one year after the relied upon sale transaction. Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh etc., 2011(1) L.A.R. 491 (SC).

NRI Landlord

Punjab Rent Act -- Amendment in pleadings -- Tenant has not averred in the application for amendment as to when he came to know about the fact which he wanted to incorporate in his application under Section 18-A of the Act -- In the absence of the material particulars about the time when the petitioner allegedly came to know about the alleged subsequent event -- Amendment is wholly frivolous and has been rightly declined by the Rent Controller. Anil Kumar Sharma v. Barjinder Singh Mann, 2011(1) L.A.R. 620 (P&H).

Punjab Rent Act -- Bonafide need – Presumption of -- Onus of proof -- Court shall presume that the landlord’s need as pleaded in the petition, is genuine and bona fide -- However, the tenant would be entitled to prove that in fact, in law, the requirement of the landlord is not genuine -- A heavy burden would lie on the tenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. Dr. Ved Pal Kaushal v. Harcharan Singh and another, 2011(1) L.A.R. 203 (P&H).

Punjab Rent Act -- Landlord was in service in Kuwait and he stood retired from service and thereafter, he visited India 2-3 times and then again went to Canada and was staying there with his family – Landlord is an NRI. Dr. Ved Pal Kaushal v. Harcharan Singh and another, 2011(1) L.A.R. 203 (P&H).

Punjab Rent Act -- Leave to defend – Limitation – Condonation of delay – Tenant is required to appear before the Controller and apply for leave to contest the same within 15 days of service of the summons -- Rent Controller being a creature of statute can only act in terms of the powers vested in him by statute and cannot, therefore, entertain an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay since the statute does not vest him with such power. Om Prakash v. Ashwani Kumar Bassi, 2011(1) L.A.R. 109 (SC).

Punjab Rent Act -- Leave to defend – Onus of proof -- Landlord had denied the documents and once it is denied, it is for the tenant to prove his case and he cannot force him to admit the case set up by him. Anil Kumar Sharma v. Barjinder Singh Mann, 2011(1) L.A.R. 620 (P&H).

Punjab Rent Act -- Number of shops in building – Right of landlord – Contention that recourse could had to the provisions of Section 13-B only once which would support the theory that each shop room or other premises in the building would have to be treated as a separate unit and the landlord would be entitled to make a choice as to which of the units he wished to take possession of immediately, since the landlord had already obtained possession of a portion of the building, it must be deemed that he had exhausted his option as given under Section 13-B and in order to evict the other tenants from the premises in question, he would have to file regular eviction petitions before the Rent Controller concerned, who would have to deal with the same in the regular manner without resorting to the emergency provisions of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act – Contention repelled. Swami Nath v. Nirmal Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 425 (SC).

Punjab Rent Act -- Pendency of eviction petition u/s 13 – Eviction petition u/s 13-B – Maintainability of -- Rights granted to the N.R.I. landlord under Section 13-B of the Act are special rights to get vacant possession at the earliest -- These special rights are independent to any other right given under Section 13 of the Act -- Hence, rights given under Section 13-B of the Act cannot be curtailed merely because, landlord has filed previous petition under Section 13 of the Act. N.R.I. landlord can exercise his right under Section 13-B of the Act even during the pendency of earlier petition under Section 13 of the Act. Dr. Ved Pal Kaushal v. Harcharan Singh and another, 2011(1) L.A.R. 203 (P&H).

Punjab Rent Act -- Return to India – Meaning of -- If an NRI returns to India on or before the enactment of Section 13-B, he is entitled to seek eviction under Section 13-B of the Act -- It is not at all necessity that an NRI should return to India only after the enactment of Section 13-B. Dr. Ved Pal Kaushal v. Harcharan Singh and another, 2011(1) L.A.R. 203 (P&H).

Punjab Rent Act – Speaking order -- Rent Controller is expected to pass a reasoned order after taking into account all the submissions made by both the sides – Document submitted by the tenant has not been considered at all by the Rent Controller -- Revision petition allowed and the matter remanded back to the learned Rent Controller to decide it afresh by taking into account the evidence led by both the parties. Anil Kumar Sharma v. Barjinder Singh Mann, 2011(1) L.A.R. 620 (P&H).

Punjab Rent Act -- Summons to tenant – Service of -- Summons has to be issued in terms of Order 5 of CPC and in addition thereto, by registered post and by affixing another copy of the summons on the conspicuous part of the building in dispute – Rent Controller has to follow all the three methods -- No such procedure, as directed under Section 18-A (3) (a) and (b) has been followed by the learned Rent Controller, who has simply relied upon the report of refusal without recording anything as to service upon the tenant by way of registered post or by way of affixation by Process Server in case of refusal, nor given any chance to verify the question of refusal on the part of the tenant -- Held, finding of the learned Rent Controller in this regard is patently erroneous and cannot be sustained to hold that service upon the tenant was validly effected. Harwinder Pal Kaur and another v. Kuldeep Singh Gurm @ Kuldeep Singh and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 401 (P&H).

Northern India Canal & Drainage Act, 1873 (8 of 1873)

Section 23,30-A, 30-B, 30-C – Change of outlet -- Authorities found that better irrigation cannot be provided to the added land of the petitioners if the area is transferred -- Claim of the petitioners has been found to be not in the interest of better irrigation, and rather, if allowed, it would adversely effect the irrigation of land of other share holders of chak -- No jurisdictional error can be traced in the orders. Adeshvir Singh & another v. State of Punjab & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 240 (P&H).

Section 23,30-A, 30-B, 30-C – Constitution of India, Article 26,227 -- Change of outlet – Writ jurisdiction -- Ordinarily the authorities under the Act are best persons to assess the irrigation prospects and other circumvening circumstances before passing an order – Orders need to be interfered with only if the order is found to be arbitrary, perverse, without jurisdiction or passed for malafide reasons. Adeshvir Singh & another v. State of Punjab & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 240 (P&H). 

Punjab Nagar Palika Election Rules, 1994

Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 81 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 3,4 – Election petition – Dismissed in default – Restoration of – Application signed by Advocate – Maintainability of -- If the application for restoration is not signed by the appellant but it is signed by his Advocate, then that will be sufficient because an Advocate is an authorized agent of the party and is also authorized under the power of attorney in his favour to sign the applications. Sukhpreet Singh v. Jatinder Kumar and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 662 (P&H).

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994)

Section 20(4), 208 – Suspension of Sarpanch -- Sarpanch may be placed under suspension for the reasons, for which he can be removed – Held, if there is no ground for removal then of course there can be no order of suspension. Kaki Devi Sarpanch v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 160 (P&H).

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994)

Section 13-A -- Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 76, 80 – Election of Sarpanch -- Election petition – Limitation – Condonation of delay -- Election petition was required to be filed within 45 days -- Limitation cannot be extended in any manner -- Section 80 of the Act provides that an election petition not complying with the provisions of Section 76 of the Act has to be dismissed. Suresh Kumar v. Sham Lal and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 100 (P&H).

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994)

Section 20(3) – Criminal case – Suspension of Panch/Sarpanch -- It is not for the authorities under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, to give an opinion on the merit of the criminal case, registered against the person –Registration of case involving serious offences, itself is a ground for suspension of Panch/Sarpanch -- Once it is not disputed that the petitioner was facing trial under Sections 307, 324, 341 and 348 IPC, no error has been committed by the authorities in suspending the petitioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 20(3) of the Act. Tejbalkar Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 181 (P&H).

Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994

Rule 89, 90 – Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 77, 89, 90 – Election – Challenge to -- Necessary party -- Neither the Returning Officer nor the Presiding Officer has been impleaded as respondent in the election petition although all the allegations have been made against them -- Election petition by itself suffered from material illegality and has been rightly dismissed by Election Tribunal on the ground of non-impleadment of the necessary parties. Asha Rani v. Barjinder Kaur and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 185 (P&H).

Writ jurisdiction

Non-acceptance of Nomination papers – State Election Commissioner in the report has mentioned that there is no conclusive evidence to establish that petitioners reached the office of Returning Officer in order to file their nomination papers – Held, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court ordinarily shall not examine disputed question of fact -- As to whether petitioners reached in time to file nomination papers is a question of fact, it can be examined in an election petition. Dalbir Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 489 (P&H).