Latest law (Rent and Revenue) published in July, 2012 Part of L.A.R.

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.

Latest law (Rent and Revenue) published in June, 2012 Part of L.A.R.

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

Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952)

Section 3 – Land for roads -- Liquor Vendor’s site -- Land which has been reserved for the expansion of the roads and slow carriage ways must be regarded as a part of the road and cannot be utilized for any other purpose whatsoever and grant of the lease on such land to open the liquor vends and tavern cannot be considered to be legal. Amit Jain and others v. State of U.T., Chandigarh and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 64 (P&H DB).

Section 3 – Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Liquor Vendor’s site – Allotment by negotiation -- Government can sell, lease or transfer either by auction, allotment or otherwise any land or building belonging to the Government in on such terms and conditions as provided by any Rules made under the Act -- Allotment of the land to the successful bidders of liquor vends by private negotiation is in violation of Section 3 of the Act and as well in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Amit Jain and others v. State of U.T., Chandigarh and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 64 (P&H DB).

Section 3 – Excise Policy 2012-13 – Liquor Vendor’s site -- As per the Excise Policy, permission to run liquor vend on a particular location can be refused by the Administration for the public morality, public health and public order -- Congestion of traffic is a valid ground to refuse permission -- Keeping in mind public safety, liquor vends in the pre-fabricated temporary structures over the Government land, which is reserved for the expansion of road and slow carriage ways near the roundabouts and traffic lights should not be allowed. Amit Jain and others v. State of U.T., Chandigarh and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 64 (P&H DB).

Section 3 – Excise Policy 2012-13 – Tavern site -- Provision for Toilet -- As per condition of the Excise Policy, tavern must have toilets -- Admittedly, there is no sewer line connecting to these liquor vends and tavern – Held, in the absence of toilet in the tavern, same cannot be allowed to run and permission should have been refused on the ground of public morality, public health and public order. Amit Jain and others v. State of U.T., Chandigarh and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 64 (P&H DB).

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908)

Section 9 – Indian Easements Act, 1882 (5 of 1882), Sections 4, 12, 18 -- Customary easement – Jurisdiction of Civil Court -- Decision of the Tahsildar after a summary enquiry with reference to the ‘previous custom’ is open to challenge in a civil suit and subject to the decision of the civil court -- Contention that Tahsildar alone has the jurisdiction, and not the civil court, to decide upon the existence or otherwise of a customary easement (relating to right of way or right to take water, to a person’s land), rejected. Smt. Ramkanya Bai & another v. Jagdish & others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 23 (SC).

Constitution of India

Article 14 -- Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 3 – Liquor Vendor’s site – Allotment by negotiation -- Government can sell, lease or transfer either by auction, allotment or otherwise any land or building belonging to the Government in on such terms and conditions as provided by any Rules made under the Act -- Allotment of the land to the successful bidders of liquor vends by private negotiation is in violation of Section 3 of the Act and as well in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Amit Jain and others v. State of U.T., Chandigarh and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 64 (P&H DB).

Article 14 – Equality -- Petitioner cannot claim any right on the basis of illegality committed by the respondents in respect of another person -- There cannot be any equality in illegality. Nivedita Sharma v. The State of Haryana and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 58 (P&H DB).

Article 226,227 -- Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010, Rule 2 – Public interest litigation -- Want of affidavit -- Non-compliance of -- Public Interest Litigation, require the petitioners to file a specific affidavit showing their credentials and also stating that petitioners are public spirited persons and they have no personal interest in the matter – In the writ petition specific stand is that present petition is being filed in the public interest and petitioners are the public spirited persons -- Moreover, Court has taken cognizance of the matter keeping in view the larger public interest involved – Held, since this Court has taken cognizance of the matter, same cannot be thrown out on the hypertechnical ground. Amit Jain and others v. State of U.T., Chandigarh and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 64 (P&H DB).

Article 226,227 -- Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 13-A, 20 – De-notification of Sarpanch – Illegal order -- Writ jurisdiction -- Totally illegal order contrary to provisions of the statute and State Government denotifying the name of private respondent as Sarpanch by notification – Held, the same was rightly challenged by filing the writ petition and the Court was fully justified in allowing the said petition. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 6 (P&H DB).

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949)

Section 13-B, 18-A -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Leave to defend -- Application for leave to contest is to be filed within 15 days from the date of service – No fault can be found in order of Rent Controller declining the application for condonation of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Om Parkash’s case (2010) 9 SCC 183 relied. Vinod Chawla v. Surinder Singh and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 21 (P&H).

General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897)

Section 26 -- Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (23 of 1961)Section 10, 13 – Licensing of Auction Platform Rules 1981, Rules 4, 21 – Licensee changed the shop – Renewal of Licence – Auction platform – Right of -- Licencee cannot be denied the right of renewal of licence only because in the form of application, a licensee has changed the place of business within the notified area -- No justification to deny to an existing licensee who applies for renewal should lose his auction platform, if he already held one. M/s Sood Brothers v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2012(2) L.A.R. 79 (P&H).

Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (8 of 1975)

Section 3-C – Independent dwelling unit – Basement – Section 3C permits transfer, sale, gift, exchange or lease of an independent dwelling unit -- It also restricts that there can be only three dwelling units on a residential plot -- Basement is not an independent residential floor, therefore, the same is not transferable independently -- Circular dated 27.3.2009, provides for transfer of the basement along with the ground floor or to have proportionate right in the basement in respect of common services – Circular permitting registration of the sale deed in respect of the basement and ground floor, is legal and valid and does not suffer from any illegality -- Basement is not habitable and the dwelling unit, therefore, it cannot be transferred as an independent unit. Nivedita Sharma v. The State of Haryana and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 58 (P&H DB).

Section 3-C – Independent dwelling unit – Basement – Two sale deeds were executed i.e. in respect of the ground floor and another sale deed bearing in respect of the basement -- Though the two separate instruments of sale were executed, but such instruments of sale are in respect of ground floor and basement in favour of the same vendee -- No violation of either the statute or Circular. Nivedita Sharma v. The State of Haryana and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 58 (P&H DB).

Indian Easements Act, 1882 (5 of 1882)

Sections 4, 12, 18 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 – Customary easement – Jurisdiction of Civil Court -- Decision of the Tahsildar after a summary enquiry with reference to the ‘previous custom’ is open to challenge in a civil suit and subject to the decision of the civil court -- Contention that Tahsildar alone has the jurisdiction, and not the civil court, to decide upon the existence or otherwise of a customary easement (relating to right of way or right to take water, to a person’s land), rejected. Smt. Ramkanya Bai & another v. Jagdish & others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 23 (SC).

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894)

Section 11-A – Award – Mandatory period -- Section 11A mandates that an award shall be made by the Collector u/s 11 of the Act within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration -- Non-adherence to this period results in entire acquisition proceedings being lapsed -- Declaration u/s 6 published before the commencement of the Amendment Act, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement (24.9.1984) -- Period during which any action or proceeding relating to acquisition taken pursuant to such declaration remains stayed by an order of the court, shall be excluded -- Period prescribed in Section 11A is mandatory. Mulchand Khanumal Khatri v. State of Gujarat & Others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 73 (SC).

Section 11-A – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 12 -- Award – Mandatory period – Limitation -- Stay order of the High Court remained operative for the period 24.9.1984 to 11.1.1996 -- Whether Section 11A of the Act permits exclusion of time that was taken in obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and order passed by the High Court and the period from the date the certified copy was obtained and it was brought to the notice of the authority – Held, period prescribed in Section 11A is mandatory -- No justification to read the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 and particularly Section 12 thereof into it -- Period cannot be excluded under explanation appended to Section 11A of the Act. Mulchand Khanumal Khatri v. State of Gujarat & Others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 73 (SC).

Section 23, 24 -- Market Value – Different sale deeds – Preference of -- Where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course -- It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation. Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot & others v. State of Punjab & others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 123 (SC).  

Section 23, 24 -- Market Value – Sale deed of small area, 2-1/2 year old – Reliance upon -- Sale deed was two and a half years prior in time of notification u/s 4(1) – No reason to eschew the above sale transaction – Annual increase @ 12% per annum allowed and area of land under sale deed is a smaller one, deduction @ 20% allowed. Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot & others v. State of Punjab & others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 123 (SC).

Section 23, 24, 28, 34 -- Additional market value -- Interest thereupon – Appellants are entitled to get interest on the additional market value including solatium. Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot & others v. State of Punjab & others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 123 (SC).

Section 4,5A,6,17 – Acquisition of land for residential Scheme – Urgency power – Invoking of -- Ordinarily, invocation of urgency power by the government for a Residential Scheme that does not fall in exceptional category cannot be held to be legally sustainable. Ram Dhari Jindal Memorial Trust v. Union of India and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 95 (SC).

Section 4,5A,6,17 – Acquisition of land for residential Scheme – Urgency power – Invoking of – Requirement of -- Statement made in notification is to the effect the Lt. Governor, Delhi is satisfied that provisions of section 17(1) are applicable and is further pleased under sub-section (4) to direct that all the provisions of Section 5A shall not apply -- No other material available on record which indicates that there has been application of mind – Power of urgency by the Government u/s 17 for a public purpose like Residential Scheme cannot be invoked as a rule but has to be by way of exception -- Notification u/s 4, 6 quashed, competent authority may now invite objections u/s 5-A of the Act. Ram Dhari Jindal Memorial Trust v. Union of India and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 95 (SC).

Section 5-A, 17 -- Acquisition of land – Urgency powers – Invoking of – Duty of Government -- Use of power of urgency under Section 17(1) and (4) of the Act ipso facto does not result in elimination of enquiry u/s 5A -- Satisfaction of the government on twin aspects viz; (i) need for immediate possession of the land for carrying out the stated purpose and (ii) urgency is such that necessitates dispensation of enquiry is a must and permits no departure for a valid exercise of power under Section 17(1) and (4). Ram Dhari Jindal Memorial Trust v. Union of India and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 95 (SC).

Licensing of Auction Platform Rules 1981

Rule 4 – Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (23 of 1961), Section 10 -- Auction site – Right of Licensee – “Any person” u/s 10 for grant of licence ought not to be seen without reference to the above rule insofar as a claim for an auction platform is made -- A licensee cannot have a right to auction platform if he did not have a right to a shop in some capacity either as an owner or as a tenant. M/s Sood Brothers v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2012(2) L.A.R. 79 (P&H).

Rule 4, 21 -- Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (23 of 1961), Section 10 -- Renewal of Licence – Auction platform – Right of -- Requirements in the rules state no more than the necessity of having a shop in the premises -- What space it shall be in the auction platform is not set out through any of the provisions of the Act or the rules -- This assumes significance because there is admittedly a shortage of space in the auction platforms and, therefore, there has to be a workable policy to accommodate persons, who are the licensees -- So long as there are no rules or provisions in the Act any such attempt, which will prejudice the existing licence holders, it cannot be tolerated -- A licence granted under the Act and Rules entitles the licensee to run his business anywhere within the area of the Market Committee -- It may be that a new licensee could use his own shop as an auction platform in a situation where no auction platform is available. M/s Sood Brothers v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2012(2) L.A.R. 79 (P&H).

Rules 4, 21 – Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (23 of 1961)Section 10, 13 – General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), Section 26 -- Licensee changed the shop – Renewal of Licence – Auction platform – Right of -- Licencee cannot be denied the right of renewal of licence only because in the form of application, a licensee has changed the place of business within the notified area -- No justification to deny to an existing licensee who applies for renewal should lose his auction platform, if he already held one. M/s Sood Brothers v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2012(2) L.A.R. 79 (P&H).

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)

Section 12 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 11-A – Award – Mandatory period – Limitation -- Stay order of the High Court remained operative for the period 24.9.1984 to 11.1.1996 -- Whether Section 11A of the Act permits exclusion of time that was taken in obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and order passed by the High Court and the period from the date the certified copy was obtained and it was brought to the notice of the authority – Held, period prescribed in Section 11A is mandatory -- No justification to read the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 and particularly Section 12 thereof into it -- Period cannot be excluded under explanation appended to Section 11A of the Act. Mulchand Khanumal Khatri v. State of Gujarat & Others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 73 (SC).

Section 5 -- East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13-B, 18-A -- Leave to defend -- Application for leave to contest is to be filed within 15 days from the date of service – No fault can be found in order of Rent Controller declining the application for condonation of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Om Parkash’s case (2010) 9 SCC 183 relied. Vinod Chawla v. Surinder Singh and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 21 (P&H).

Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010

Rule 2 – Constitution of India, Article 226,227 -- Public interest litigation -- Want of affidavit -- Non-compliance of -- Public Interest Litigation, require the petitioners to file a specific affidavit showing their credentials and also stating that petitioners are public spirited persons and they have no personal interest in the matter – In the writ petition specific stand is that present petition is being filed in the public interest and petitioners are the public spirited persons -- Moreover, Court has taken cognizance of the matter keeping in view the larger public interest involved – Held, since this Court has taken cognizance of the matter, same cannot be thrown out on the hypertechnical ground. Amit Jain and others v. State of U.T., Chandigarh and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 64 (P&H DB).

Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (23 of 1961)

Section 10 -- Licensing of Auction Platform Rules 1981, Rule 4 – Auction site – Right of Licensee – “Any person” u/s 10 for grant of licence ought not to be seen without reference to the above rule insofar as a claim for an auction platform is made -- A licensee cannot have a right to auction platform if he did not have a right to a shop in some capacity either as an owner or as a tenant. M/s Sood Brothers v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2012(2) L.A.R. 79 (P&H).

Section 10 -- Licensing of Auction Platform Rules 1981, Rule 4, 21 -- Renewal of Licence – Auction platform – Right of -- Requirements in the rules state no more than the necessity of having a shop in the premises -- What space it shall be in the auction platform is not set out through any of the provisions of the Act or the rules -- This assumes significance because there is admittedly a shortage of space in the auction platforms and, therefore, there has to be a workable policy to accommodate persons, who are the licensees -- So long as there are no rules or provisions in the Act any such attempt, which will prejudice the existing licence holders, it cannot be tolerated -- A licence granted under the Act and Rules entitles the licensee to run his business anywhere within the area of the Market Committee -- It may be that a new licensee could use his own shop as an auction platform in a situation where no auction platform is available. M/s Sood Brothers v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2012(2) L.A.R. 79 (P&H).

Section 10, 13 – Licensing of Auction Platform Rules 1981, Rules 4, 21 – General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), Section 26 -- Licensee changed the shop – Renewal of Licence – Auction platform – Right of -- Licencee cannot be denied the right of renewal of licence only because in the form of application, a licensee has changed the place of business within the notified area -- No justification to deny to an existing licensee who applies for renewal should lose his auction platform, if he already held one. M/s Sood Brothers v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2012(2) L.A.R. 79 (P&H).

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887)

Section 13 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Appeal -- Comparative merits -- Appellate Authority’s power -- Commissioner came to the conclusion that private respondent was younger in age, economically sound, better educated and was having better social status, but these facts were not properly appreciated by the Collector -- Order of the Collector was set aside and respondent No.4 was appointed as Lambardar of the village -- Order of the Commissioner was upheld by the Financial Commissioner and further by the Ld. Single Judge – Held, private respondent is a better candidate, therefore, the learned Single Judge, rightly declined to interfere in the orders of the revenue authorities, appointing private respondent as Lambardar of the village. Talwinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 3 (P&H DB).

Section 13, 15 – Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – FIR against candidate -- Collector not only found private respondent as a better candidate, but it was also found that the appellant had got prepared a false voter identity card in the name of his wife, though he was not married at all – In criminal case, private respondent, had already been acquitted before initiation of the proceedings for appointment of Lambardar -- District Collector had rightly appointed private respondent being an Ex-Serviceman, as Lambardar --  Choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar should not be interfered on superficial grounds, until and unless the order of the Collector in this regard suffers from patent illegality. Kushal Pal v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 19 (P&H DB).

Punjab Land Revenue Rules

Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Criminal case – Moral Turpitude -- Criminal case registered u/ss 323, 324, 325, 452, 148, 149 IPC, and appointed candidate was acquitted much prior to the date of inviting applications – Held, registration of the said criminal case could not have been taken into consideration, particularly when the offences in that case did not relate to moral turpitude. Talwinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 3 (P&H DB).

Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – Election Kanungo – Candidature of – Contention that private respondent at the time of initial appointment was working as Election Kanungo – Held, merely taking employment is no bar for appointment on post of Lambardar – No merit in the contention. Sukhminder Singh’s case 1992 (3) SCT 28 & Gurmail Singh Lambardar’s case 2011(1) RCR(Civil) 308 relied. Sukhdev Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 92 (P&H DB).

Rule 15 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – FIR against candidate -- Collector not only found private respondent as a better candidate, but it was also found that the appellant had got prepared a false voter identity card in the name of his wife, though he was not married at all – In criminal case, private respondent, had already been acquitted before initiation of the proceedings for appointment of Lambardar -- District Collector had rightly appointed private respondent being an Ex-Serviceman, as Lambardar --  Choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar should not be interfered on superficial grounds, until and unless the order of the Collector in this regard suffers from patent illegality. Kushal Pal v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 19 (P&H DB).

Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (42 of 1976)

Section 7-A, 10 – Election of Municipal Corporation/Councils/Panchayats – Fairness in election – Videography – Police protection -- (i) The Chief Secretary, Punjab, Director General of Police, Punjab, State Election Commissioner, Punjab and the Chief Election Commissioner, Punjab are directed to ensure that election is conducted in a free and fair manner, without intimidation of the voters etc.; (ii) The incidences of booth capturing if occur anywhere the same shall be immediately reported to officers of the State Election Commission, Punjab and Chief Election Commissioner, Punjab; (iii) It is further directed that adequate police force be deputed at all the polling booths, particularly the sensitive polling stations for maintaining law and order with the sole objective of holding free and fair elections; (iv) If any person(s) asks for personal security then the concerned Superintendent of Police will assess the threat perception and if it is found necessary, the concerned Superintendent of Police will provide security to such person(s) during the period of election; and (v) The petitioners or any other person are at liberty to arrange videography outside the polling station at their own costs and if they express such a desire, they be not prevented from doing so. It is, however, made clear that videography shall not be conducted inside the polling booths to maintain secrecy of the polling. Krishan Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 117 (P&H DB).  

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994)

Section 13-A -- Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 74 -- Election of Panch – Setting aside of – Effect on Sarpanch -- Prayer was for declaration of election of Panch as void with a further prayer that she be declared elected as a Panch in SC (Woman) category – No prayer for setting aside the election of Sarpanch -- Merely because one of the members, who had participated in the election of the Gram Panchayat in the first meeting held u/s 13-A, and if subsequently the election of the said member is set aside, the proceedings of the said meeting or the election of the Sarpanch could not be set aside. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 6 (P&H DB).

Section 13-A, 14, 15 -- Election of Sarpanch – Term of office of Sarpanch – Removal of -- Term of office of Gram Panchayat shall be for five years unless dissolved earlier under the Act -- Panch, who has been elected as Sarpanch in the first meeting held u/s 13-A of the Panchayati Raj Act, will hold the office for a term of five years until and unless he resigns as contemplated u/s 17 or removed by passing No-Confidence Motion as contemplated u/s 19 or suspended and removed as contemplated u/s 20 of the Panchayati Raj Act. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 6 (P&H DB).

Section 13-A, 20 – Constitution of India, Article 226,227 -- De-notification of Sarpanch – Illegal order -- Writ jurisdiction -- Totally illegal order contrary to provisions of the statute and State Government denotifying the name of private respondent as Sarpanch by notification – Held, the same was rightly challenged by filing the writ petition and the Court was fully justified in allowing the said petition. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 6 (P&H DB).

Section 20(1)(a), 20(3), 208(1)(c) – Suspension of Sarpanch – Removal of Sarpanch -- If a Sarpanch/Panch is found guilty and has been convicted for any offence involving moral turpitude or for such offence i.e., forgery in the Panchayat's record, embezzlement of Panchayat funds etc. when it would not be desirable in the interest of Panchayat to permit such Panch or Sarpanch to perform the duties of Panch or Sarpanch, then it would be disqualification u/s 208(1)(c) and is liable to be removed u/s 20(1)(a) of the 1994 Act, however, if no conviction order is passed then disqualification as provided under Section 208(1)(c) of the 1994 Act, shall not be attracted – Therefore, the removal order passed against the petitioner is not only without jurisdiction but also beyond the scope of Section 20(1)(a) of the 1994 Act. Paramjit Kaur, Panch v. The Financial Commissioner and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 55 (P&H).

Section 20(1)(a), 20(3), 208(1)(c) – Suspension of Sarpanch – Removal of Sarpanch -- Having possession of any narcotic substance is a serious offence and amounts to moral turpitude -- Elected Sarpanch/Panch represents the society and they are the elected representatives and role-model of the habitants of the village, therefore, they are supposed not to indulge in any criminal activities, more so, in offence punishable under the NDPS Act – Removal order is liable to be quashed, however, the petitioner shall remain under suspension during the pendency of the investigation/trial, as the case may be. Paramjit Kaur, Panch v. The Financial Commissioner and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 55 (P&H).

Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (31 of 1973)

Section 3, 4, 5 – Dilapidated condition of building – Lease not extended – Unauthorized occupants -- Building, in which the post office is running, is an old building and in dilapidated condition – Running of a public office, like the post office, in such a building is neither safe nor in public interest. It may result into any mis-happening at any time – Contention that due to the financial crunch, the Union of India is not in a position to construct the new building for housing the post office, cannot be accepted -- Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the Union of India is totally unwarranted – Writ was rightly dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/-. Union of India and others v. Municipal Council, Muktsar and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 89 (P&H DB).

Section 3,4 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7 -- Jumla Mushtarka Malkan land – Eviction from -- Since, the management and control vest in the Gram Panchayat, such land is public premises and ejectment of unauthorized occupant therefrom can be made under both the Acts i.e. Section 5 of the Eviction Act and Section 7 of the Common Lands Act – Whichever remedy, Panchayat deem it appropriate speedy, summary and effective, it can avail. Rajdev Singh and another v. Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 107 (P&H DB). 

Section 3,4 – Jumla Mushtarka Malkan land – Eviction from -- Contention that property is “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” and the petitioners are proprietors of the village, as such have share in the land in question, this land has neither been reserved for common purposes nor is being used for common purposes and the petitioners are in the cultivating possession, as such, have becomes owners to the extent of their shares – Held, no evidence that what was the share of the petitioners and they were in exclusive possession of any part of the land after having a valid partition of the “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” land – Land as per Jamabandi for the year 1958-59 is Gram Panchayat -- So, all the rights vest in the Gram Panchayat for management and control – Eviction order upheld. Rajdev Singh and another v. Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 107 (P&H DB). 

Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953)

Section 2(3), 2(5-a) – Transfer of land by sale – Surplus area – Declaration of -- Notice – Date of 30.07.1958 which would be relevant for exclusion if the sale had taken place before the said date -- For any transaction subsequent to the same, issuance of notice would still be relevant – Transferees had not obtained mutation and the authorities could not be faulted for proceeding to determine the surplus even without notice to alleged transfers -- No scope for intervention in the impugned proceedings and the challenge to the same is rejected. Karam Chand and another v. The State of Punjab, through Secretary (Revenue), Punjab Government, Chandigarh, and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 112 (P&H).  

Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994)

Section 74 -- Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 13-A -- Election of Panch – Setting aside of – Effect on Sarpanch -- Prayer was for declaration of election of Panch as void with a further prayer that she be declared elected as a Panch in SC (Woman) category – No prayer for setting aside the election of Sarpanch -- Merely because one of the members, who had participated in the election of the Gram Panchayat in the first meeting held u/s 13-A, and if subsequently the election of the said member is set aside, the proceedings of the said meeting or the election of the Sarpanch could not be set aside. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 6 (P&H DB).

Section 26,27,28, 81 – Election of Panch – Name in two electoral roll – Effect of --No person is eligible to contest the election if his/her name is registered in the electoral roll for more than one constituency – Plea that an application for cancellation of voter card has been moved to the concerned authority before the Election – Document is required to be proved as per the provisions of CPC, which has not been done – Matter remitted back to Election Tribunal for deciding afresh by affording reasonable opportunity to both the sides to submit their claim. Smt. Varinder Kaur alias Barinder Kaur v. Smt. Gurcharan Kaur and another, 2012(2) L.A.R. 45 (P&H).

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961)

Section 7 – Eviction petition – Res-judicata -- Petition u/s 11 of the Act, claiming ownership of the land in dispute dismissed by the Collector by holding that the Gram Panchayat is owner of the land in dispute -- Question regarding ownership having been decided, inter parties, the petitioners, cannot be heard to urge that they are owners of the land in dispute. Pritam Dass and others v. The Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 1 (P&H DB).

Section 7 -- Eviction petition – Res-judicata -- Section 7 of the Act, prescribes a summary procedure for eviction of an unauthorised occupant -- Dismissal of a petition u/s 7 of the Act, does not operate as res-judicata in a subsequent petition. Pritam Dass and others v. The Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 1 (P&H DB).

Section 4 -- Non-proprietor of village – Right of -- Section 4 of the Act protects the possession of such non-proprietors as are proved to be in possession for a period of 12 years, before the coming into force of the Act -- Petitioners are recorded in possession, for the first time in the year 1962-63, i.e., after the coming into force of the Act – Plea raised by the petitioners that as they have been in possession of the land in dispute since 1947, their possession is protected by virtue of Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act, must fail. Pritam Dass and others v. The Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 1 (P&H DB).

Section 4 – Unauthorised occupants – Non-proprietors of village – Right to purchase -- Plea that the petitioners are non-proprietors and have constructed houses in this land -- Liberty granted to the petitioners to file an application before the Gram Panchayat in accordance with law, for purchase of land which forms the site beneath their houses -- In case such an application is filed, it shall be considered and decided by the Gram Panchayat within three months --  During pendency of such an application, the dispossession of the petitioners shall remain stayed from the houses. Pritam Dass and others v. The Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 1 (P&H DB).

Section 7, 11 – Eviction petition – Title dispute -- If a question of right, title or interest is raised by any person and a prima-facie case is made out in support thereof, the Collector shall direct the person who has raised such question to submit his claim u/s 11 and till the question is so determined, the application shall remain pending. Gram Panchayat Dholwaha v. Joint Development Commissioner (IRD), Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 13 (P&H DB).

Section 7, 11 – Eviction petition – Title dispute – Power of Commissioner -- Commissioner had no jurisdiction, while deciding an appeal arising from, proceedings u/d 7 of the 1961 Act to decide a question of title -- If the Commissioner was, prima-facie satisfied that a credible question of title has arisen for consideration, he was required to call upon parties to file a petition u/s 11 of the Act and direct that during pendency of proceedings, the petition u/s 7 of the 1961 Act shall be kept in abeyance. Gram Panchayat Dholwaha v. Joint Development Commissioner (IRD), Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 13 (P&H DB).

Section 7, 11 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 6 -- Gair marusi tenant – Entries in jamabandi – Proof of tenancy -- Jamabandi entries as Gair Marusi tenants -- In the absence of any resolution or lease deed executed by the Gram Panchayat, in accordance with Rule 6 of the 1964 Rules, entries in the Jamabandis do not confer the status of a tenant so as to enable the petitioners to allege that they are the tenants, protected by the Punjab Land Revenue Act or by the judgment in Sarwan and Rati Ram’s case 1985 PLJ, 262 -- Petitioners are held to be unauthorised occupants of panchayat property and have, therefore, been rightly ordered to be evicted. Bikar Singh and others v. Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 16 (P&H DB).

Section 7, 13-A (Haryana) – Unauthorised occupants – Eviction of -- Title suit – Damages – Quasi judicial authorities/Courts – Power of -- No specific provision under the Act for imposing penalty for use and occupation – Petitioner was held liable to pay damages to the Gram Panchayat for unauthorized use and occupation of the land from the date, the petitioner has been declared unauthorized occupant of the land by the Competent Court – Damages assessed for all the crops on the basis of “Jhad Paidawar” crop-wise, value of which shall be paid by the petitioner along with interest @ 9% per annum calculated on bank basis till the date of payment -- This is in the nature of damages/mense profits for unauthorized use and occupation of land of Gram Panchayat by the petitioner, it is not penalty -- Power to restitute by way of damages is inherent in the quasi judicial authorities / Courts -- Unscrupulous litigants cannot drive benefit of technicalities of law by agitating the matter time and again. Pyare Lal v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 48 (P&H DB).

Section 5(5) -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 Rule 5 – Exchange of land – Setting aside of – Natural justice – Speaking order – Requirement of -- Collector sanctioned exchange of land, without there being any jurisdiction vested in him but said order of Collector has been cancelled on a complaint, in which a preliminary inquiry and regular inquiry has been held -- Order passed is without issuing any show cause notice or providing inquiry report to the petitioners or granting an opportunity to contest the correctness of the reports – Impugned order does not disclose any reasons for cancellation of order – Held, not only judicial or quasi judicial order is to be passed following the principles of natural justice, but also the administrative orders, which affect the civil rights, have to adhere the principle of natural justice -- Impugned order set aside. Milkha Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 86 (P&H DB).

Section 11 – Title dispute – Panch filing appeal -- Locus Standi to file appeal -- Collector allowed the application u/s 11 by recording a finding that, though, the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat but as it was donated to the petitioners' father, who has constructed a house, the land no longer vests in the Gram Panchayat -- Gram Panchayat did not file any appeal -- A Panch, of the Gram Panchayat, filed an appeal, which was allowed by the appellate authority and the order passed by the Collector was set aside – Contention that as the Gram Panchayat did not file any appeal, the appellate authority could not entertain the appeal, at the behest of a private person, merits summary rejection -- Plea of locus-standi, particularly, when raised in a case of illegal appropriation of public property, cannot be a ground to reject a bonafide appeal. Nasib Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 93 (P&H DB).

Section 11 – Title dispute – Admittedly, the land in dispute is recorded as the ownership of the Gram Panchayat -- Collector has recorded a finding that, though, the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat, it was donated to the petitioners' father and as he has constructed a house, the land, no longer belongs to the Gram Panchayat -- Finding, recorded by the Collector, is not based upon any evidence, much less a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat gifting the land to the petitioners' father -- Order passed by the Collector was, therefore, rightly set aside by the Appellate Authority -- Petitioners may, however, approach the Gram Panchayat, for purchase of the land, in accordance with law. Nasib Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 93 (P&H DB).

Section 7 -- Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (31 of 1973), Section 3,4 – Jumla Mushtarka Malkan land – Eviction from -- Since, the management and control vest in the Gram Panchayat, such land is public premises and ejectment of unauthorized occupant therefrom can be made under both the Acts i.e. Section 5 of the Eviction Act and Section 7 of the Common Lands Act – Whichever remedy, Panchayat deem it appropriate speedy, summary and effective, it can avail. Rajdev Singh and another v. Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 107 (P&H DB). 

Section 7, 11 – Res-judicata -- Earlier petition filed u/s 7 of the 1961 Act, was dismissed – Subsequent petition u/s 7 and 11 of the 1961 was allowed by Collector and affirmed by Commissioner -- Petition u/s 7 of the Act shall not operate as res judicata in a subsequent petition, filed under Section 11 of the Act – Writ challenging the order on the ground of res-judicata, dismissed. Tehal Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 120 (P&H DB).  

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964

Rule 5 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 5(5) -- Exchange of land – Setting aside of – Natural justice – Speaking order – Requirement of -- Collector sanctioned exchange of land, without there being any jurisdiction vested in him but said order of Collector has been cancelled on a complaint, in which a preliminary inquiry and regular inquiry has been held -- Order passed is without issuing any show cause notice or providing inquiry report to the petitioners or granting an opportunity to contest the correctness of the reports – Impugned order does not disclose any reasons for cancellation of order – Held, not only judicial or quasi judicial order is to be passed following the principles of natural justice, but also the administrative orders, which affect the civil rights, have to adhere the principle of natural justice -- Impugned order set aside. Milkha Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 86 (P&H DB).

Rule 5 – Nature of Land – Change of – Sanction of Government – Requirement of -- Entry of the revenue record is ‘Gair Mumkin Shamshan Bhumi’ and its nature is sought to be changed as commercial -- Once the nature of the land is to be changed from ‘Gair Mumkin Shamshan Bhumi’ to commercial then it does not remain within the competence of the Gram Panchayat to pass any final resolution -- It would always be subject to the sanction of the Government, which has not been given – Resolution set aside. Hinduwan Shamshan Bhumi, Tosham v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 31 (P&H DB).

Rule 6 -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 11 – Gair marusi tenant – Entries in jamabandi – Proof of tenancy -- Jamabandi entries as Gair Marusi tenants -- In the absence of any resolution or lease deed executed by the Gram Panchayat, in accordance with Rule 6 of the 1964 Rules, entries in the Jamabandis do not confer the status of a tenant so as to enable the petitioners to allege that they are the tenants, protected by the Punjab Land Revenue Act or by the judgment in Sarwan and Rati Ram’s case 1985 PLJ, 262 -- Petitioners are held to be unauthorised occupants of panchayat property and have, therefore, been rightly ordered to be evicted. Bikar Singh and others v. Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 16 (P&H DB).

Wakf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995)

Section 7 -- Evacuee property – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Suit was filed on 7.11.1983, and the Wakf Act, 1995 came into force from 1.1.1996 – Held, matter which is pending in any suit before the commencement of the Act or which is the subject matter of an appeal, there would be no bar for the Civil Court to decide such issues. Tehsildar (Sales), Gurgaon and another v. Roshan Lal and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 38 (P&H).

Section 7(1) -- Evacuee property – Non-declaration of – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred for entertaining the suit for permanent injunction, since there was no evidence on the record of the case which the State produced that the property in dispute has been declared evacuee property. Tehsildar (Sales), Gurgaon and another v. Roshan Lal and others, 2012(2) L.A.R. 38 (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.