***

Royalty -- Enhancement of rate -- Subsequent statutory amendment prevailing over prior contractual stipulation -- Liability to pay royalty determined with reference to date of removal/dispatch of mineral and not date of auction or acceptance of bid.

***

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Section 9 -- Royalty -- Iron ore sold through e-auction -- Bid accepted and royalty deposited at rate of 10% -- Royalty enhanced to 15% before removal of mineral pursuant to amendment of Second Schedule -- Royalty payable at rate prevailing on date of dispatch/removal of mineral -- Contractual stipulation regarding royalty cannot override subsequent statutory amendment -- Additional royalty validly recovered from security deposit -- High Court erred in directing refund.

(Paras 10-13)

***

Land Revenue Act -- Revision -- Mutation attested in 2004 challenged after about 20 years -- Revisional powers exercisable only within reasonable time though no limitation prescribed -- Belated revision entertained without considering delay or accrued third-party rights held unsustainable -- Order setting aside mutation quashed and mutation restored.

***

A. Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, Samvat 1996 (1939 A.D.) (XII of Samvat 1996), Section 15 -- Revisional jurisdiction -- Exercise after unreasonable delay -- Mutation attested in 2004 challenged by revision petition filed in 2021 -- No application for condonation of delay and no finding regarding sufficiency of cause -- Revisional powers, though not subject to any prescribed period of limitation, required to be exercised within a reasonable period -- Entertaining revision after nearly two decades without cogent explanation impermissible -- Order of Financial Commissioner set aside and mutation restored.

(Paras 30-44, 47-60)

B. Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, Samvat 1996 (1939 A.D.) (XII of Samvat 1996), Section 15 -- Revisional jurisdiction -- Delay and laches -- Long-standing mutation remaining unchallenged for about twenty years -- Mutation having remained operative for about twenty years and third-party rights having accrued during intervening period -- Reopening concluded mutation after extraordinary delay without considering effect on accrued rights and settled position held unsustainable.

(Paras 36-45, 52-58)

C. Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, Samvat 1996 (1939 A.D.) (XII of Samvat 1996), Section 15 -- Revisional jurisdiction -- Fraud -- Mere allegation of fraud does not confer indefinite period for exercise of revisional powers -- Even where fraud is alleged, revisional jurisdiction must be exercised within reasonable time from its discovery -- Bald and unsubstantiated plea of fraud insufficient to unsettle long-standing mutation.

(Paras 39, 49, 57)

***

Co-sharer property -- Purchaser from co-sharer acquires only such rights and possession as vendor himself possessed and cannot claim exclusive possession unless vendor was in exclusive possession of specific khasra numbers.

***

Permanent injunction -- Joint property -- Co-sharer in joint possession is not entitled to injunction restraining other co-sharers from alleged interference on basis of claim of exclusive possession not proved.

***

Revenue record -- Exclusive possession -- Burden of proof -- Failure to produce revenue record showing vendor's exclusive possession prior to sale deed is fatal to claim of exclusive possession by vendee.

***

Additional evidence -- Relevancy -- Sale deed relating to different khasra numbers and executed by a person not party to suit is neither relevant nor necessary for adjudication of dispute and cannot be permitted in appeal.

***

A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 8 -- Co-sharer property -- Sale by co-sharer -- Vendor being co-sharer in joint property could transfer only such rights and possession as he himself possessed -- Purchaser cannot claim exclusive possession unless vendor was established to be in exclusive possession of specific khasra numbers at time of sale.

(Paras 13 to 16)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 38 -- Permanent injunction -- Joint possession -- Vendor not proved to be in exclusive possession of suit land -- Purchaser held only a co-sharer in joint possession -- Not entitled to injunction restraining other co-sharers from interference with suit property.

(Paras 14 to 16)

C. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Revenue record -- Khasra Girdawari -- Exclusive possession -- Khasra Girdawari reflected possession of different co-sharers and joint possession of suit land -- Absence of any revenue record showing exclusive possession of vendor prior to execution of sale deed negatived purchaser's claim of exclusive possession.

(Paras 14 and 15)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 -- Additional evidence -- Additional evidence sought to be produced related to different khasra numbers and purchase of share from a person not party to suit -- Evidence neither relevant nor necessary for adjudication of appeal -- Application rightly dismissed.

(Para 16)

***

Court fee -- Refund of excess court fee -- Issue of court fee is a matter between plaintiff and Court -- Issuance of notice to defendants and affording them opportunity of hearing not necessary.

***

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Sections 10 and 11 -- Refund of court fee -- Excess court fee -- Issue of court fee is a matter between plaintiff and Court -- Defendants have no role to play in adjudication of claim for refund of excess court fee -- Issuance of notice to defendants and affording them opportunity of hearing not necessary.

(Para 9, 10)

***

Lambardar -- Appointment upheld as proclamation was duly conducted and petitioner failed to apply in time; Collector’s choice found non-perverse -- Writ petition dismissed.

***

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 – Appointment of Lambardar – Mustri munadi/proclamation – Challenge to appointment – Record showing due proclamation in village including entry in rojnamcha and statements of Panchayat members – Petitioner failed to apply within prescribed time and thus has no locus standi – Financial Commissioner upheld Collector’s order after comparative assessment of candidates and found no perversity in Collector’s decision – Choice of Collector in Lambardar appointment not to be interfered with unless perverse – Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 not to be exercised to re-appreciate merits – Writ petition dismissed.

(Paras 7 to 9)

***

Status quo order -- Allegation that respondents/plaintiffs violated status quo by starting business/working in shops -- Even then, petitioner/defendant cannot unilaterally seal shops during subsistence of status quo order.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 -- Status quo order -- Allegation that respondents/plaintiffs violated status quo by starting business/working in shops -- Even then, petitioner/defendant cannot unilaterally seal shops during subsistence of status quo order -- Such action held unsustainable and direction for de-sealing upheld.

(Paras 2 and 3)

***

Partition of land -- Challenge to concluded partition proceedings under Haryana Land Revenue Act -- No objection raised at stage of mode of partition/Naksha Bey/Naksha Jeem -- Tubewell land already allotted and landlocked khasra not entitled to separate Rasta -- Partition upheld as involving equitable adjustment and not mathematical precision -- Writ petitions dismissed.

***

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Act No. XVII of 1887), Sections 111, 114, 116, 118, 121, 122 and 125 -- Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 -- Partition proceedings -- Mode of partition -- Clause providing that partition will be carried out while maintaining possession -- Petitioners challenging partition on ground of violation of mode of partition, non-allotment of tubewell land, absence of Rasta and unfair partition -- Petitioners already allocated area where tubewell installed has been allotted to them -- No reasonable basis to claim entire Killa number -- Claim for separate Rasta rejected as land found landlocked and not abutting any existing revenue passage -- No occasion for providing Rasta to land locked area -- Petitioners did not raise objections to mode of partition or Naksha Bey and Naksha Jeem at relevant stage -- Partition proceedings completed with Sanad Taksim -- Partition cannot be carried out with mathematical precision and adjustments are required depending upon various factors including possession, location, nature and value of land and passage -- Writ petitions dismissed.

(Paras 7 to 12)

***

Will -- Exclusion of natural heirs -- Mere exclusion of wife and children from inheritance not by itself a suspicious circumstance.

***

Order 41 Rule 31 CPC -- Non-framing of proper points for determination by First Appellate Court -- Effect -- Mere technical non-compliance not sufficient to vitiate judgment when Appellate Court has substantially complied with requirements of law by thoroughly considering evidence, rival contentions and recording reasons -- Judgment of First Appellate Court upheld.

***

Affidavit -- Evidentiary value -- Affidavit of attesting witnesses denying execution of Will -- Affidavit not substantive evidence unless deponent subjected to cross-examination in accordance with law.

***

A. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Will -- Due execution and attestation -- One attesting witness examined -- Attesting witness specifically deposed that testator executed Will in his presence and both signed in presence of each other -- Requirement of proof of execution duly satisfied -- Concurrent findings upholding genuineness of Will affirmed.

(Paras 27 to 30)

B. Mutation entries -- Effect -- Mutation entries do not confer title and are only for fiscal purposes -- Mere mutation of property in favour of wife and children of deceased not affecting title flowing under validly executed Will.

(Para 31)

C. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 -- Will -- Suspicious circumstances -- Exclusion of natural heirs -- Mere exclusion of wife and children from inheritance not by itself suspicious circumstance -- Testator legally entitled to dispose of property according to his wishes.

(Paras 32 to 34)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 41 Rule 31 -- First Appellate Court -- Non-framing of proper points for determination -- Substantial compliance -- Mere technical non-compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC not sufficient to vitiate judgment where Appellate Court substantially complied with requirements by scrutinising evidence and assigning reasons -- Judgment held not suffering from illegality.

(Para 37)

E. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 3 -- Affidavit -- Evidentiary value -- Affidavit not substantive evidence unless deponent available for cross-examination -- Affidavits of attesting witnesses denying execution of Will filed even before filing of written statement and without Court notice -- Such affidavits rightly held unreliable and discarded.

(Para 38)

***

Public nuisance -- Illegal encroachment on public street -- Removal of unauthorized ramps and structures -- Maintainability of writ petition -- Efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 152 BNSS, 2023 -- Writ petition dismissed with liberty to avail statutory remedy.

***

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 152 -- Public nuisance -- Illegal encroachment on public street -- Petition seeking removal of unauthorized ramps, platforms and structures allegedly raised over public street by way of encroachment – State raised objection regarding availability of statutory remedy under Section 152 BNSS -- Petitioner unable to controvert said objection -- High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and relegated petitioner to avail remedy in accordance with law.

(Paras 1 to 4)

***

Sarpanch/ Panch/ Panchayat Secretary -- Enquiry -- Alleged misuse of Panchayat funds on private land -- Absence of prima facie material -- Prayer for roving enquiry not maintainable -- Writ petition dismissed.

***

Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 -- Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Sections 51(3) and 53 -- Sarpanch/ Panch/ Panchayat Secretary -- Enquiry -- Allegation of misuse and misappropriation of Panchayat funds for construction of passage on private land -- Petitioner sought enquiry against Sarpanch, Panches and Panchayat Secretary along with recovery of allegedly misappropriated amount -- Except representations submitted by petitioner, no substantive material placed on record to prima facie support allegations -- Petitioner held to be seeking a roving enquiry on speculative foundations -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Paras 3 to 5)

Writ jurisdiction -- Challenge to notice issued by District Development and Panchayat Officer under provisions of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 -- Petitioner relegated to avail statutory remedy by submitting response before competent authority -- Writ petition dismissed.

***

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Sections 20, 200 and 208 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Show-cause notice issued by District Development and Panchayat Officer -- Judicial review at preliminary stage -- Scope -- High Court should not entertain writ petitions against notices issued by statutory authorities as a matter of routine -- Party must ordinarily submit reply before competent authority and pursue statutory remedies against adverse order, if any -- Writ petition dismissed, however, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail her other remedies, in accordance with law.

(Para 4-5)

Watercourse -- Change of alignment -- Challenge to orders passed by Canal Authorities directing restoration of sanctioned watercourse on common watt (boundary) between lands of parties -- Dismissal of civil suit on account of failure to prove demarcation report does not negate existence of sanctioned watercourse.

***

Punjab Canal and Drainage Act, 2023 (11 of 2023), Section 14(3) -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Change in alignment of watercourse -- Scope of judicial review -- Canal Authorities competent to restore alignment of sanctioned watercourse running on common watt between adjoining landowners -- Dismissal of civil suit on account of failure to prove demarcation report does not negate existence of sanctioned watercourse -- Canal Authorities rightly directed demarcation through Local Commission before implementation of alignment -- Direction held fair and in interest of all shareholders to ensure operationalization of watercourse at originally sanctioned site -- Impugned orders upheld.

(Paras 6 to 9)

***

Pre-emption – Co-sharer – Right of kinsfolk co-sharer -- Plaintiff being co-sharer in joint khewat was entitled to exercise right of pre-emption even though he was related to vendor -- Declaration of Section 15(2) of Punjab Pre-emption Act as unconstitutional did not take away right of co-sharer under Section 15(1)(b).

***

Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (1 of 1913), Section 15(1)(b) Fourthly, 15(2) – Pre-emption suit -- Plaintiff sought possession by way of pre-emption on ground of being co-sharer in joint khewat -- Defendant contended that since plaintiff was related to vendor, claim could arise only under Section 15(2), which had been declared ultra vires -- Held, right of pre-emption available to co-sharer under Section 15(1)(b) remains intact notwithstanding declaration of Section 15(2) as unconstitutional -- Kinsfolk of vendor, if also co-sharers, are entitled to maintain suit for pre-emption under Section 15(1)(b) Fourthly -- Judgments and decrees passed by Courts below decreeing suit upheld -- Regular Second Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 7 to 10)

Lambardar -- Appointment -- Collector found respondent more suitable candidate and appointed him as Lambardar -- Concurrent findings recorded by Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner upheld -- No illegality or perversity found -- Writ petition dismissed.

***

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Sections 28, 29 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rules 14 to 16 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Scope of judicial review -- Choice of Collector in matter of appointment of Lambardar should not be lightly interfered with merely because another view is possible -- Interference warranted only in cases of patent illegality or perversity -- Concurrent findings of Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner affirming appointment of respondent as Lambardar -- No illegality or perversity therein -- No ground made out for interference in writ jurisdiction.

(Paras 8 to 10)

Partition proceedings -- Clubbing of partition proceedings relating to different khewats -- Mere convenience of some co-sharers not sufficient to direct clubbing of khewats having different co-sharers -- Clubbing permissible only with consent of all co-sharers.

***

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 111, 121 -- Partition proceedings -- Clubbing of khewats -- Different co-sharers in different khewats -- Partition proceedings cannot be clubbed unless all co-sharers consent to same -- Clubbing of three khewats, which are subject matter of three separate partition applications, having different co-sharers cannot be permitted unless all the co-sharers in respective khewats agree to the same -- Merely for convenience of the some of the co-sharers, the partition cannot be carried out by directing clubbing of khewats unless all the co-sharers consent to the same.

(Paras 4 to 12)

***

Nominee –Savings account’s Nominee is entitled only to receive amount lying in account and does not acquire ownership of entire estate by virtue of nomination alone.

***

Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 370 -- Nominee -- Succession certificate -- Plaintiff proved to be nominee in post office savings account -- Nomination held to confer right only to withdraw amount lying in account and not succession rights over entire estate -- Succession certificate obtained by defendant without impleading plaintiff and without disclosure of complete facts not conclusive of title -- It merely authorizes collection of debts and securities and does not adjudicate ownership of the estate conclusively.

 (Paras 12, 13)

Panch -- Removal from office -- Unauthorized possession of Panchayat land -- Petitioner removed from post of Panch -- Eviction order attained finality as same was never challenged -- Authorities rightly held petitioner disqualified to continue as Panch.

***

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Sections 51(3), 175(n) -- Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 -- Removal of Panch -- Unauthorized occupation/ encroachment -- Eviction order passed by Assistant Collector against petitioner regarding Gram Panchayat land -- Once eviction order attained finality and remained unchallenged, competent authority justified in invoking provisions of Sections 51 and 175(n) for removing petitioner from post of Panch -- No ground for interference in writ jurisdiction.

(Paras 5 to 7)

Sarpanch -- Removal from office -- Unauthorized occupation of Panchayat land -- Demarcation conducted pursuant to Court order established encroachment by petitioner and his brother over Panchayat Deh land -- Writ dismissed.

***

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Sections 51(3), 175(n) -- Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 -- Removal of Sarpanch -- Unauthorized possession of Panchayat land -- Deputy Commissioner removed petitioner from office of Sarpanch on allegation of encroachment over land recorded as Panchayat Deh -- High Court directed demarcation under supervision of SDM in presence of petitioner and stakeholders -- Demarcation report established illegal occupation to extent of 1171 sq. yards by petitioner and his brother -- No merit -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 3, 4)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) Section 18, 28-A -- Enhanced compensation without filing reference -- Entitlement of co-sharers -- Execution petition dismissed by Executing Court on ground that petitioners had not sought reference u/s 18 of the Act -- Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramphal’s case (SC) (2026) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20854 held co-sharers entitled to same compensation as awarded to other co-owners in acquired land though interest restricted -- Petitioners held entitled to compensation alongwith statutory benefits in terms of award passed in favour of co-sharers -- Matter remitted to Executing Court for fresh adjudication and release of amount in accordance with directions issued by Supreme Court -- Impugned order set aside.

(Para 5-8)

***

Ad valorem Court fee -- Plaintiff being signatory/executant of sale deed and seeking possession after its revocation along with recovery of specified amount, held, liable to pay ad valorem Court fee notwithstanding suit being styled as one for mandatory injunction.

***

Court Fees Act, 1870, S.7(iv)(c), Art.17(iii) Sch.II -- Ad valorem Court fee -- Suit for possession camouflaged as mandatory injunction -- Plaintiff sought revocation/cancellation of sale deed executed by himself and also sought release of specified balance sale consideration -- Mere clever drafting of suit as one for mandatory injunction cannot avoid payment of proper Court fee – Signatory of sale deed seeking its annulment liable to pay ad valorem Court fee on consideration mentioned in deed -- Trial Court rightly directed plaintiff to affix ad valorem Court fee -- Revision dismissed.

(Paras 10 to 15)

Lambardar -- Appointment -- Sarbrah Lambardar -- Mere experience as Sarbrah Lambardar does not confer preferential right to appointment -- Choice of Collector upheld -- Writ dismissed.

***

Lambardar -- Appointment -- Sarbrah Lambardar -- Preference to a Sarbrah Lambardar can be granted only where comparative merits of candidates are nearly equal -- Candidate younger in age, possessing larger landholding and recommended by lower revenue authorities rightly preferred for appointment.

***

A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (17 of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Challenge to orders of Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner appointing respondent as Lambardar -- Petitioner contended that being a former Sarbrah Lambardar, he was entitled to preference in view of Government notification dated 25.12.2021 -- Held, preference on basis of service as Sarbrah Lambardar cannot override comparative merits of candidates and grant of such preference being akin to hereditary claim already held unconstitutional -- Appointed candidate found younger in age, possessing larger landholding and recommended by lower revenue authorities -- Collector after considering comparative merits appointed respondent as Lambardar -- Choice of Collector not liable to interference unless shown to be perverse or suffering from patent illegality -- No illegality or perversity found in concurrent orders passed by revenue authorities -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 6 to 10)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (17 of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Sarbrah Lambardar -- Mere experience as Sarbrah Lambardar not decisive -- Preference on such basis can be granted only when comparative merits of candidates are substantially similar -- Appointed candidate found younger in age than petitioner, possessed larger landholding and was recommended by lower revenue authorities -- Appointment upheld.

(Para 7)

***

Panchayat (Haryana) -- Election petition -- All contesting candidates should have been impleaded as parties and the impleading of only the returned candidate was not sufficient.

***

Handwriting expert – Report -- It is of advisory value and the science of examination of handwriting is not a perfect science.

***

A. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 163, 176 – Election petition – Necessary party -- All contesting candidates -- In terms of the provisions of Section 176 of the 1994 Act, all contesting candidates should have been impleaded as parties and the impleading of only the returned candidate was not sufficient.

(Para 19)

B. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 163, 176 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 39 -- Election petition – Report of the handwriting expert – It is of advisory value and the science of examination of handwriting is not a perfect science.

(Para 19)

C. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 163, 176 – Election petition – An election cannot be set aside on the mere asking of another contesting party.

(Para 20)

A. Property – Title – Entry in property register of Municipal Corporation -- Proof of title – Except for a random entry in its property register, the MCD never asserted title over the plots in question before any forum – A mere entry in the list of properties maintained by the MCD cannot, by itself, constitute a valid proof of title over the subject land.

(Para 24, 27)

B. Property – Layout plan – Land earmarked for public purpose – De-reservation – Effect – Land originally earmarked for a High School – Competent authority de-reserved the land admeasuring 1600 sq. yards – No material on record to show that notwithstanding such de-reservation, land would continue to retain character of being reserved for a public purpose – Finding that land required to be retained for public purpose held unsustainable on the face of the record.

(Para 28)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (6 of 1918), Section 41 – Regular Second Appeal -- Scope -- Applicability of Punjab Courts Act, 1918 vis-à-vis Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -- In States of Punjab & Haryana, second appeals governed by Section 41 of 1918 Act and not by Section 100 CPC -- No requirement to frame substantial question of law. Position settled by Pankajakshi’s, (2016) 6 SCC 157, Kirodi’s  (2019) 11 SCC 317 = (2019) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14222 and Satender’s case, 2022 (12) Scale 92.

(Para 6)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 6 -- Family settlement – Spes Successionis -- Nature of property/ right to be included – Family settlement is not circumscribed to parties possessing an existing legal title in the property – Law recognizes that such a settlement may validly be arrived at even amongst persons having a semblance of a claim, a possible expectancy, or a mere chance of succession – It has been unequivocally held that even a prospective or contingent right to succeed to property constitutes a sufficient juridical basis for entering into a family arrangement -- Children and grandchild of the appellants-plaintiffs, possessed a legitimate expectation or chance of succession in the event of intestate devolution -- Consequently, the existence of such a potential claim furnishes an adequate legal foundation for the family settlement.

(Para 12, 12.1)

C. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 – Compromise decree/ Family settlement – Requirement of Registration -- Decree merely formalized and recognized the pre-existing rights which had already accrued to the respondents-defendants pursuant to the family settlement effected in the year 1989 -- In such circumstances, the decree falls within the category of declaratory recognition of antecedent rights and, therefore, does not attract the requirement of compulsory registration.

(Para 12.4)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 4 -- Fraud / misrepresentation -- Pleading and proof – Allegations must be pleaded with specificity and particularity -- Full particulars of fraud, undue influence, and misrepresentation has to be clearly set out in the pleadings -- Allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and undue influence must be pleaded with precision and specificity, detailing the manner, circumstances, and particulars thereof -- A bald and omnibus assertion, devoid of material particulars, does not satisfy the statutory requirement -- Moreover, such allegations are required to be substantiated by cogent, convincing, and reliable evidence.

(Para 12.6, 16, 16.1)

E. Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 11 -- Transfer / Family Settlement – Minor is beneficiary -- Validity -- Family settlement, wherein a minor member of the family is conferred a share in immovable property, cannot be rendered null and void merely on account of the minority of such beneficiary -- Jurisprudential foundation of a family settlement is fundamentally distinct from that of a contractual arrangement inter se parties -- A family settlement, being an arrangement intended to preserve harmony, avoid disputes, and secure equitable distribution of property within the family, cannot be invalidated solely on the ground that one or more beneficiaries had not attained the age of majority at the relevant time.

(Para 18)

F. Mutation -- Nature and effect -- Mutation entries, being fiscal in nature, neither confer nor extinguish title -- Respondents-defendants derive their title not from the mutation, but from the judgment and decree -- Consequently, any error in the mutation entries does not, ipso facto, divest the appellants-plaintiffs of their rightful share in the property.

(Para 18.5)

G. Limitation -- Suit for possession based upon title – There is no limitation for seeking possession on the basis of title.

(Para 18.6)

***

Panchayat election -- False declaration -- Concealment of pending criminal case in nomination form amounts to false declaration and valid ground for annulment of election.

***

Panchayat election -- Disqualification -- Six years’ bar from contesting elections under Section 146(2) of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act held neither arbitrary nor disproportionate.

***

Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (4 of 1994), Sections 122(1)(n), 131, 146(1), 146(2) -- Constitution of India, Articles 14, 21, 226 -- Panchayat election -- False declaration in nomination form -- Concealment of pendency of criminal case -- Election of petitioner as Pardhan earlier set aside on ground of deliberate suppression of criminal antecedents -- Deputy Commissioner thereafter disqualified petitioner for six years under Section 146(2) -- Challenge to constitutional validity of Section 146(2) on ground that punishment was harsh, disproportionate and arbitrary for want of discretion to impose lesser penalty -- Rejected -- Held, disclosure of criminal antecedents in nomination form is mandatory and concealment thereof constitutes false declaration attracting statutory disqualification --  Six years’ disqualification cannot be termed arbitrary or disproportionate as legislative intent is to ensure exclusion of disqualified candidate from at least the next Panchayat election cycle -- Provision enacted to preserve purity, transparency and accountability in electoral process -- Section 146(2) constitutionally valid.

(Paras 11 to 19)

***

Writ jurisdiction -- Co-operative society election -- Challenge to validity of bye-laws governing eligibility to contest elections to Management Committee of District Milk Unions -- District Milk Unions held not “State” within meaning of Article 12 -- Internal governance and electoral disputes held not to involve public law element -- Writ petitions not maintainable.

***

Writ jurisdiction -- Co-operative society election -- Mere supervisory or regulatory control by State not sufficient to render society instrumentality of State -- Writ lies only where body performs public duty or breaches statutory obligation of public character.

***

Writ jurisdiction -- Co-operative society election -- Election disputes touching constitution, management or business of society -- Registrar vested with exclusive jurisdiction -- High Court ought not to bypass statutory remedy under Article 226.

***

A. Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (Act 16 of 2002), Sections 58, 60, 104 to 107 and 125 -- Constitution of India, Articles 12, 226 -- Co-operative society election -- Challenge to validity of bye-laws governing eligibility to contest elections to Board of Directors of District Milk Unions -- Maintainability of writ petitions -- District Milk Unions autonomous member-driven bodies governed by provisions of Act, Rules and bye-laws -- Unions neither departments of State nor owned, financially controlled or administratively dominated by State so as to constitute instrumentalities of State within meaning of Article 12 -- Mere existence of regulatory or supervisory control by Registrar or State Co-operative Election Authority not determinative -- Internal management, governance and electoral disputes do not by themselves attract writ jurisdiction merely because societies owe incorporation to statute -- Act, 2001 provides complete self-contained adjudicatory mechanism through Registrar, arbitration, appeal, Tribunal, review and revision -- Disputes relating to validity of bye-laws governing elections fall squarely within statutory framework under Sections 58 and 60 -- Writ petitions filed without exhausting efficacious statutory remedy held not maintainable -- High Court erred in bypassing statutory dispute resolution mechanism and entertaining writ petitions under Article 226.

(Paras 14 to 15.12)

B. Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (Act 16 of 2002), Sections 8, 18, 28 and 32 -- Co-operative society -- Elections -- Bye-laws -- Eligibility criteria -- Validity of -- Statutory framework expressly contemplates that elections shall be conducted in accordance with Act, Rules and bye-laws of society -- Bye-laws not external or extraneous to election process -- Bye-laws regulating minimum milk supply, continuity of operations and prescribed audit classification held to regulate candidature and continuation in office -- Conditions intended to ensure minimum level of functional connection, participation and suitability in relation to affairs of society -- Impugned bye-laws do not impose disabling or punitive bar contemplated under Section 28 -- Absence of eligibility merely postpones right to contest till prescribed conditions fulfilled -- Conditions held reasonable, non-arbitrary and within statutory competence of society -- Invalidation of the bye-laws on the premise that they impose disqualifications is, therefore, legally unsustainable.

(Paras 17 to 19.7)

C. Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (Act 16 of 2002), Sections 19, 32 -- Co-operative society -- Elections -- Bye-laws -- Eligibility criteria -- Election -- Right to vote vis-à-vis right to contest election -- Distinction -- Neither right to vote nor right to contest election is fundamental right -- Rights are purely statutory in nature and exist only to extent conferred by statute -- Right to contest election is distinct and additional statutory right to office and may legitimately be made subject to qualifications, eligibility conditions and disqualifications -- Impugned bye-laws directed only at eligibility of President or representative of primary co-operative society to contest election to or continue as member of Board of Directors -- Bye-laws do not regulate or curtail right of members to cast vote -- Regulation of candidature cannot be equated with restriction on right to vote.

(Paras 18 to 18.7)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 37, 38 -- Co-owner -- Permanent injunction for raising construction – Co-owner in exclusive possession ordinarily cannot be restrained from raising construction over joint property, however injunction can be granted where such construction is detrimental to interests of other co-owners and may prejudice partition proceedings -- Defendants having stalled partition proceedings and simultaneously raised construction to consolidate possession, Courts below rightly held their conduct prejudicial to plaintiffs’ rights -- Discretionary relief of injunction properly exercised -- No perversity or illegality in concurrent findings -- Regular Second Appeal dismissed.

(Para 11-14)

A. Gair Marusi / Bila Lagan Bawajeh Purani Kast – Scope -- Mere entry of possession as Gair Marusi in cultivation column does not establish tenancy.

(Para 21, 22)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 5 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Suit for possession – Plea of tenancy -- Revenue entries showing possession as ‘Gair Marusi’ – Effect – Plaintiff proved ownership of suit property on the basis of registered sale deed and sanctioned mutation – Revenue entries (jamabandi and khasra girdawari) only showed defendant in possession as “Gair Marusi / Bila Lagan Bawajeh Purani Kast” and did not record payment of rent or existence of tenancy – No lease deed, rent receipt produced to establish relationship of landlord and tenant – Mere entry of possession as Gair Marusi in cultivation column does not establish tenancy – Earlier suit filed by defendant resulted only in protection of possession and did not determine title or tenancy rights – Claim of occupancy tenancy also declined by revenue authorities – Courts below rightly concluded that defendant failed to prove tenancy and plaintiff, being owner, was entitled to possession – Concurrent findings of fact do not call for interference in second appeal – Regular Second Appeal dismissed, judgments and decrees of Courts below affirmed.

(Para 14-25)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Gair Marusi – Absence of rent entry – Whether tenancy proved -- Respondent-plaintiff is merely recorded as “Gair Marusi” in possession, without any accompanying recital of rent, thereby negating the essential attributes of tenancy -- Column pertaining to rent in Jamabandi is entirely blank -- Absence of any such entry decisively militates against the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship.

(Para 13, 14)

A. Constitution of India, Article 12 – Panchayat Samiti -- Instrumentality of State -- Panchayat Samiti, constituted under statutory enactments governing Panchayati Raj institutions and functioning under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, performs governmental and public functions at the grass-root level, operates under deep and pervasive control of the State Government and is substantially funded through State and Central grants – In view of the overwhelming financial dependence and dominant State funding, the financial control test unequivocally stands fulfilled – Held, Panchayat Samiti is an instrumentality of the State and falls within the meaning of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 20-33)

B. Constitution of India, Article 12 – Employee of Panchayat Samiti – Whether Government employee -- Once it has been held that the Panchayat Samiti is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the principal foundation of the respondents’ defence that the petitioner was not a Government employee stands substantially eroded.

(Para 3)

C. Constitution of India, Article 12, 14, 16 – Service Law – Daily wager in Panchayat Samiti – Regularisation under Government policy – De-regularisation after three years -- Petitioner appointed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar through Employment Exchange in 1991 under Panchayat Samiti – State Government framed regularisation policy dated 18.03.1996 for daily wage employees completing three years continuous service with 240 days each year – Petitioner’s services regularised w.e.f. 01.02.1996 and regular pay scale, increments and GPF benefits granted – After more than three years, State passed order de-regularising petitioner on ground that he was not a Government employee but employee of Panchayat Samiti -- Held: Reasoning is legally untenable :

-- it is impermissible for the respondents to subsequently withdraw the regularisation on the plea of lack of authority in the initial appointment. Any alleged defect in the appointment of 12.03.1991 cannot be used to unsettle a valid regularisation effected on 01.02.1996, particularly when no fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment is attributed to the petitioner.

-- de-regularisation order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness on account of inordinate delay. For over three years after regularisation, the petitioner was treated as a regular employee in all respects. Such prolonged acquiescence by the State creates a legitimate expectation in favour of the petitioner that his service status would not be disturbed. Administrative fairness does not permit the State to undo a settled position after such a lapse of time.

-- the action of the respondents is ex facie discriminatory. Other similarly situated employees were regularised under the same or similar policies. Though notices for de-regularisation were issued to some of them, their cases either remained protected by interim orders of this Court or became infructuous upon retirement. Singling out the petitioner for de-regularisation in 1999, while extending protection or continued service to others similarly placed, amounts to hostile discrimination and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

-- in view of the finding that the Panchayat Samiti is “State” under Article 12, the distinction sought to be drawn by the respondents between a Government employee and an employee of the Panchayat Samiti is artificial and unsustainable.

Impugned order quashed, and the petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in regular service w.e.f. 01.02.1996 with full continuity of service -- Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing therefrom, including pay fixation, grant of increments, and retiral benefits, if any -- Arrears arising on account of such refixation shall be paid to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, calculated from the date the amounts became due till the date of actual payment.

(Para 34-46)

A. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 74 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 4-24, 29(2) -- Appeal u/s 74 of  Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 -- Section 29(2) of the 1963 Act is mandatory, with the exception arising only by way of an express exclusion -- Therefore, in the absence of the same, Sections 4 to 24 of the said Act can be read into such special or local law -- The 2013 Act does not take away from its purview the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the 1963 Act – The 2013 Act being a subsequent legislation, it is obvious that the Legislature was conscious not to take away the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the 1963 Act from its purview – Section 74 of the 2013 Act does not exclude the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the 1963 Act.

(Para 62, 76, 77)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6, 11, 54 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(1)(a), 74 -- Acquisition of land under 1894 Act – Award after commencement of 2013 Act – Appeal u/s 74 of 2013 Act will lie -- Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act is applicable to all those cases where awards are passed after the commencement of the 2013 Act -- For passing the award under Section 24(1)(a), the provisions of the 2013 Act alone will have to be followed, except for the rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements -- The first appeals before the High Courts should be treated as ones under Section 74 of the 2013 Act and not under Section 54 of the 1894 Act.

(Para 97 (i)-(iii))

C. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 74, 103 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5, 29(2) – Appeal u/s 74 of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Limitation – Condonation of delay -- Section 74 of the 2013 Act does not bar the application of Section 5 of the 1963 Act -- Consequently, all the applications seeking condonation of delay in preferring the first appeals before the High Courts u/s 74 of the 2013 Act stand allowed -- High Courts shall avoid a pedantic approach as against a pragmatic one in dealing with the applications seeking condonation of delay.

(Para 97 (iv)-(viii))

A. Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 10A(b) -- Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (13 of 1955), Section 3 -- Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 12(3), 26 -- Declaration/ Vesting of Surplus land – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – An order declaring surplus area is, generally not amenable to the jurisdiction of the civil court, however, there are exceptions to this general rule -- To find out whether a civil court is barred under provisions of Section 26 of 1972 Act, the test would be whether there was a violation of 1972 Act/1953 Act/PEPSU Act committed by authorities or there was breach of natural justice -- Land was declared surplus vide orders dated 21.08.1956 and 09.06.1961 -- Possession of the land so declared surplus was never taken by the State -- In the absence of utilization, the orders declaring the land surplus in the hands of the landowner did not become operative against his rights prior to the enforcement of the 1972 Act -- Rights of major sons of the landowner had come into force prior to the utilization of the land so declared surplus -- Plaintiffs are challenging the operation and effect of those orders on account of non-utilization of the surplus land till the appointed date and effect of section 10-A(b) of 1953 Act -- Nature of the dispute raised by the plaintiff-appellants is, therefore, amenable to the jurisdiction of the civil court.

(Para 13, 14, 18)

B. Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 10A(b), 33(2)(ii) -- Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 12(3) -- Declaration/ Vesting of Surplus land – 1972 Act came into force -- Re-determination of surplus area – Where land declared surplus in the hand of land-owner was not utilised by State prior to enforcement of 1972 Act, such land would not automatically vest in State – Surplus area is required to be re-determined under Section 10-A(b) of 1953 Act -- Such re-determination shall be governed by the provisions of the 1953 Act only if any of the conditions specified under Section 10-A(b) of 1953 Act had arisen prior to the enforcement of the 1972 Act -- However, if the land stood utilized prior to the enforcement of the 1972 Act by way of allotment and taking of possession, the same shall vest exclusively in the State -- Where the land has not been utilized and none of the conditions laid down under Section 10-A(b) of 1953 Act had arisen prior to the enforcement of the 1972 Act, such land shall also vest in the State from the appointed date, i.e., 24.01.1971.

(Para 19)

C. Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 10A(b), 33(2)(ii) -- Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 12(3) – Declaration of Surplus land – Non-utilisation of – 1972 Act came into force -- Re-determination of surplus area – State was duty-bound to determine whether the surplus area was liable to be re-determined on account of the existence of any of the conditions enumerated under Section 10-A(b) of 1953 Act -- No such exercise undertaken by the State -- Appeal allowed, competent authority directed to determine whether any of the conditions specified under Section 10-A(b) of 1953 Act had arisen in favour of the landowner prior to the appointed date under the 1972 Act -- If such conditions are found to exist, the surplus area shall be re-determined accordingly under the 1953 Act -- In case none of the conditions specified under Section 10-A(b) are made out, the surplus land shall vest in the State.

(Para 19)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary Injunction – Co-sharers – Construction on joint property – Equity – A co-owner who has himself raised construction on a portion of the joint land cannot seek injunction to restrain other co-owners from exercising similar rights over the joint property – Principle that one who seeks equity must act equitably applies.

(Para 6.1)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 5 -- Admission in earlier suit – Effect – Admission that suit land already stood partitioned and parties were in exclusive possession of their respective portions disentitles the petitioner from claiming injunction over the joint property.

(Para 6.1)

C. Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Revision – Interference with appellate order – Additional District Judge has interfered with the trial court’s order on sound reasoning, no illegality, arbitrariness or jurisdictional error -- Consequently, no interference is warranted in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The instant revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Para 6.2)

A. Constitution of India, Article 341(1), 342(1) -- Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe -- Power to specify a caste or tribe as a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is conferred upon the President of India, in relation to each State or Union Territory -- Once such specification is made, only Parliament, by law, may include or exclude any caste or tribe from the notified list -- Neither the executive nor the judiciary has any authority to modify or extend the scope of the Presidential Order.

(Para 9.4)

B. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 9, 161 -- Constitution of India, Article 341(1), 342(1) -- Election of Sarpanch – Reserved seat for Scheduled Caste -- Scheduled Caste Certificate of father from other State -- The words “in relation to that State or Union Territory” occurring in Articles 341(1) and 342(1) are of decisive significance; they indicate that the recognition of a caste or tribe is confined to the particular State or Union Territory for which it is so notified -- Since the petitioner does not belong to any caste notified as Scheduled Caste in the State of Haryana, she had no legal right to hold the office of Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes -- Petitioner’s reliance on a certificate obtained from the authorities in Haryana on the basis of Scheduled Caste Certificate of her father issued by the State of Bihar, would not entitle the petitioner to contest election as a Scheduled Caste candidate in Gram Panchayat elections in the State of Haryana.

(Para 9.4, 12, 13)

C. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 51, 161, 176 – Election of Sarpanch/ Panch – Challenge to -- Election of a candidate to the post of Sarpanch or Panch (as the case may be), could be questioned either by filing an election petition under Section 176 of the 1994 Act or by submitting a complaint to the concerned authority under Section 51 of the 1994 Act.

(Para 14, 14.1)

A. Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (8 of 1953), Section 3 – Occupancy tenant recorded as owner in revenue record/ Jamabandi – No question of getting a declaration from the Court to the effect that he had become the owner by virtue of the 1952 Act.

(Para 15)

B. Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (8 of 1953), Section 3 – Death of occupancy tenant -- After getting ownership, he died without leaving behind legal heirs -- Effect of -- Occupancy tenant was already recorded as an owner well before his death -- As such, the defendants-appellants, the erstwhile landlords were left with no right, title or interest whatsoever in the suit land so as to seek redemption of the same – Trial Court rightly set aside mutation re-entered in the name of erstwhile owner.

(Para 16, 17)

A. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 51, 175(v), 176 – Removal of Women Sarpanch – Qualification-Minimum Middle pass -- Educational qualification neither verified nor proved by the concerned school from which petitioner claims to have passed the 8th class examination -- Petitioner also not made any effort to establish the authenticity or genuineness of the School Leaving Certificate relied upon by her -- Mark-sheet of the 8th class examination, which the petitioner claims to have passed, has not been placed on record of with writ petition – Held, petitioner does not possess the minimum educational qualification (middle class pass for woman candidate) prescribed for contesting the election to the post of Sarpanch and, therefore, she has been rightly removed from the said post.

(Para 10)

B. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 51, 175(v), 176 – Election of Sarpanch – Election petition – Removal of Sarpanch on complaint – Permissibility of -- Contention that since respondent No.6 has also filed an election petition, the complaint filed by her before the District Authorities could not be entertained under Section 51 of the 1994 Act – Held, if the petitioner had any objection as regards the maintainability of the complaint u/s 51 of the 1994 Act, then she should have availed her appropriate remedies before the competent Court at the relevant stage by challenging such proceedings -- However, no such recourse appears to have been taken by the petitioner – Held, once the petitioner had duly participated in the proceedings initiated against her under Section 51 of the 1994 Act and also suffered an adverse order, she cannot now be permitted to turn around and raise an objection to the maintainability of such proceedings merely on the ground that an election petition had also been filed against her – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 11-13)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 15, 210 – Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 76, 80, 81 – Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, Rule 50 – Election petition challenging election of Sarpanch -- Procedure before Tribunal – Framing of issues -- Neither the response has been called for nor issues have been framed – No evidence was recorded -- Tribunal proceeded to decide the election petition as if he was resolving a trivial dispute without realizing that he was dealing with democratic rights of the parties -- Order is bereft of application of mind -- Election petition has been adjudicated by passing a callous order – Impugned order not sustainable, quashed – Matter remanded back to Tribunal to decide in accordance  with law.

(Para 10-12)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Mutation -- Already sold property – Appropriate remedy -- Revenue authorities refused to record name of the appellants after noticing the fact that the original person, through whom appellants-vendor claim right, had already sold his share and was not left with any land which could be transferred – Issues sought to be raised by the appellants cannot be examined in summary proceedings of mutation -- Remedy of the appellants would be to seek appropriate declaration from the competent Civil Court.

(Para 2-4)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Mutation Proceeding – Nature of -- Any order passed in summary proceedings of mutation remain subservient to a declaration granted by the competent Civil Court.

(Para 4)

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 51(1)(b), 51(3)(e) -- Suspension of Sarpanch – Threat of self-immolation by Sarpanch -- Resorting to self-harm as a means of protest is neither a recognised form of legal redress nor can it be countenanced in a constitutional democracy -- Prima facie, this amounts to mis-conduct in the discharge of her duties and her continuance in the office is un-desirable in the public interest in terms of Section 51(3)(e) of the 1994 Act -- In terms of Section 51(1)(b) of the 1994 Act, the Deputy Commissioner was justified in ordering suspension of petitioner from the post of Sarpanch – Suspension order upheld.

(Para 8, 9)

Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (7 of 2014), Section 3, 4, 17, 36 -- Welfare of Street Vendors – Medical and insurance facility to street vendors -- Duty of Municipal Corporation -- Street vendors and their families, who are depositing fee with the Municipal Corporation for the certificate being given to them for vending, also need to be provided some social protection -- Amount so recovered by the Municipal Corporation should, therefore, be used for their benefits alone and should be kept in a separate budget head, and as a suitable insurance for them, including medical facilities, should be provided by the Municipal Corporation, U.T. Chandigarh, and Rules in this regard should be framed -- Municipal Corporation, U.T. Chandigarh, should set up a particular cell of Inspectors/ Officers to regulate that there is no misuse of the Vendors’ Act so that genuine people may not be harmed.

(Para 17-19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379, 411 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- M.P. Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2022, Rules 3, 4 – Quashing of FIR -- Theft – Excavation of sand by Panchayat -- Exception under Rule 4 granted to the Gram Panchayat for transportation and storage of minor minerals quarried from the Government lands for public works -- This rule cannot be interpreted to the extent that the Gram Panchayat can commit theft or can illegally excavate the sand -- State Government is the owner of every mineral and therefore the illegal excavation of the same would amount to commission of theft -- It is not the case of applicant that the sand was purchased by the Gram Panchayat and the sand in question was quarried from Govt. land in legal manner -- Court can quash the proceedings only if the uncontroverted allegations do not make out an offence -- Application dismissed.

(Para 5-10)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Age of candidate – Choice of Collector – Writ jurisdiction -- Respondent No.4 was appointed as the lambardar by the learned Collector -- Said appointment further affirmed by the learned Commissioner and Financial Commissioner -- Respondent No.4 is younger in age than the petitioner and has studied up to 10+2 along with an ITI diploma and he also owns 28 kanals of land in the Village and is an agriculturist – Held, in the matter of appointment of the lambardar age of a candidate is a relevant consideration and also the choice of the learned Collector is not to be lightly interfered with even if two views are possible unless there is patent illegality or perversity therein -- No illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities -- Writ petition fails and dismissed.

(Para 5-8)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Allegation of encroachment over Panchayat land -- Collector appointed petitioner as Lambardar -- Ld. Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner remanded the matter to the learned Collector for verifying the illegal encroachment over the Panchayat land by the petitioner – There is considerable basis for remanding the matter to the learned Collector for verifying the illegal encroachment over the Panchayat land by the petitioner especially considering the fact that certain ejectment orders were produced before the learned Financial Commissioner -- No merit in writ petition dismissed.

(Para 7)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 --  Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Hereditary claim -- Petitioner was wrongly appointed as Lambardar (BC) on the ground of his hereditary claim by Collector – Divisional Commissioner rightly set aside the order  of Collector being ultra vires the Constitution -- Respondent No. 4 is more meritorious than the petitioner in terms of his age and educational qualification and his name was recommended by lower revenue officials – No illegality or perversity in the order passed by learned Divisional Commissioner in appointing respondent No. 4 as Lambardar.

(Para 7-9)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Acquittal in criminal case – Effect of -- Although the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal cases, however, once a person with clean image/ antecedents available, then no fault can be found in the choice of the Collector in appointing respondent No.4 as lambardar.

(Para 8)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – Interference in – Permissibility of -- In the matter of appointment of lambardar, the choice of the Collector is not to be lightly interfered with even if two views are possible unless there is patent illegality or perversity therein.

(Para 9)

Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 14(1)(b)(iii) -- Muslim Member of Bar Council – Appointment as member of Waqf Board – Challenge to – Appellant been elected as a member of Bar Council – As such elected as a Member of the Board, in accordance with Section 14(1)(b)(iii) of the 1995 Act -- Respondent No. 3, who is no longer holding the said post of a Muslim Member of the Bar Council, cannot be allowed to contend that even after he had ceased to be a Member of the Bar Council, he would be entitled to continue as a Member of the Board -- Appellant is the only Muslim Member in the Bar Council, a fact that has been rightly taken note of by the State of Manipur, while appointing him as a Member of the Board -- No dispute with respect to the appellant’s eligibility to be a Member of the Board – Appointment upheld.

(Para 1, 18-21)

A. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17, 69 (a) to (j); Section 22A, 22B (State amendment of Tamilnadu) – Registration Rules, Rule 55A(i) (State Amendment of Tamilnadu) -- Registration of sale deed – Refusal to register -- Power of Registrar – Rule 55A(i) declared ultra vires the 1908 Act -- None of Clauses (a) to (j) of Section 69 provides for framing Rules conferring power on the registering authority to refuse registration of a document of transfer -- No provision under the 1908 Act confers power on any authority to refuse registration of a transfer document -- Unless documents are produced evidencing title as required by Rule 55A(i), registration of the sale deed shall be refused.

Held, registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant -- He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title -- Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid – Rule-making power u/s 69 cannot be exercised to make a Rule that is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act -- Due to the inconsistency, Rule 55A(i) declared ultra vires the 1908 Act.

(Para 11-15)

B. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 -- Registration of sale deed/ Lease deed – Power of Registrar -- Effect of wrong registration -- Under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer -- Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances, the document must be registered -- The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses -- If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.

(Para 15)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ petition – Challenge to orders of quasi-judicial authorities -- Cause of action arose to father – Locus standi of son after 30 year -- Father of the petitioners died in the year 2015 -- Orders which now being assailed by the petitioners was in existence for almost 30 years as till the date when the father of the petitioners died and in his wisdom the father of the petitioner, never assailed it – Held, petitioners do not have any locus to file and maintain the writ petition.

(Para 3, 4)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 122, 123, 126 -- Gift deed – Completion of -- Unilateral cancellation – Permissibility of -- Delivery of possession is not sine qua non to validate a gift or settlement -- Delivery of possession is only one of the methods to prove acceptance and not the sole method – If the original deed was returned after registration, the fact that it was already acted upon, cannot be altered -- Receipt of the original document by the plaintiff and registration of the same, would amount to acceptance of the gift and the transaction satisfies the requirement of Section 122 of the TP Act -- Once the document is declared as “gift”, Donor/ defendant No.1 had no right to cancel the same unilaterally and the Sub Registrar had no right to register the cancellation deed -- Unilateral cancellation of the document is void and as a natural corollary, the sale deed executed by Donor/ Defendant No.1 / father also is invalid.

(Para 18)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 10A – Shamilat deh -- Jurisdiction of Collector/ Financial Commissioner -- Cancellation of lease by Financial Commissioner – Held, jurisdiction to rescind or cancel lease solitarily vested in the Collector of the Revenue District concerned -- Financial Commissioner or any other officer of the Government of Punjab, except the Collector concerned held no jurisdiction to cancel the leases concerned -- Impugned order passed by Financial Commissioner, set aside.

(Para 1, 2, 5-10)