Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 2(5-a) -- Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 12(3), 16 – Surplus land – Allotment thereof – Notice to subsequent purchaser – Requirement of -- Suit land declared surplus in the hands of big landowners way back in 1965 and had vested in the State of Haryana w.e.f. 24.01.1971, whereas plaintiffs-appellants purchased the suit land in May 1980 i.e. almost 15 years later than the declaration of the suit land as surplus -- Before making the allotment, simple effecting of the munadi in the village is sufficient u/s 16 of the Act so that the eligible allottees can put forward their claim -- As plaintiffs were not recorded as owners of the suit land, so it was not essential to issue them any such notice.

(Para 8-10)

Shamilat deh – Mutation -- Land pre-consolidation was shamlat deh -- Consolidation Authority had no right to partition the land amongst the proprietors and to allot the land to the plaintiff-appellants -- Argument that since there was a mutation in favour of plaintiff, hence, he had become legal owner of the plot also deserves to be rejected.

(Para 2, 11)

East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 21(2) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Re-allotment of land – Objections -- Addl. Director Consolidation remanded the lis to decide objections u/s 21(2) of the Act – Consolidation Officer passed order, yet the aggrieved estate holder challenged the order in appeal before the Settlement Officer, who dismissed the said appeal – On petition of aggrieved party, Additional Director of Consolidation reversed earlier order -- Remedy to the aggrieved from earlier order  was before High Court or before the Civil Court -- Exercising of jurisdiction twice by the same authority on similar motions tantamount to the exercising of review jurisdiction, which is impermissible – Writ allowed, preserving liberties to access the Civil Court remedies.

(Para 3-9)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 17(ii) -- Appointment of Lambardar – Hereditary claim -- Contended that the petitioner being son of the deceased Lambardar has hereditary claim to the post – Hereditary claim is unconstitutional, argument raised is without any force, rejected.

(Para 5, 6)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Appointment of the Lambardar is prerogative of the Collector and even if there are two views possible, then the view taken by the Collector should not be discarded -- Collector is the prime authority for deciding the most suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar and his order cannot be interfered unless the same suffers from material perversity.

(Para 6, 7)

Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (13 of 1955), Section 18 – Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 59 -- Succession of tenancy rights to lineal male descendant – Agricultural land -- Dispute is with regard to succession to the tenancy rights between the son on one side and the daughter and daughter-in-law of a pre-deceased son on the other side -- Both the courts below after have relied upon Section 18 of the Pepsu Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act 1953 and Section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, which provide that lineal male descendant are only entitled to inherit the tenancy rights – No ground to interfere – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 1-5)

A. Haryana Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 21, 42 – Jurisdiction of Director Consolidation -- After the updating of records taking place, there is no exercisable jurisdiction vested in the Director of Consolidation rather within the domain of Section 42 of the ‘Consolidation Act, 1948’

(Para 11)

B. Haryana Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 21, 36, 42 -- Finalisation of consolidation proceedings – Revocation of -- Updation of records taking place in terms of Section 22 of the 'Consolidation Act, 1948' and none of the aggrieved made challenge, it acquired binding and conclusive effect -- Transfer of possessions were made to all the estate holders, inclusive of the Gram Panchayat -- Consolidation scheme not amenable to be revoked -- Orders prima facie vary and revoke the finalized consolidation scheme are in conflict with Section 36 of the 'Consolidation Act, 1948' -- Writ petition succeeds and the impugned orders quashed and set aside.

(Para 14-17)

C. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 11 -- Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 13A, 13AA -- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 42 -- Haryana Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 42 -- Collectors and Appellate Authorities contemplated under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Authorities contemplated under Section 42 of the 'Consolidation Act, 1948 – Directions issued :

1) Firstly, the authorities envisaged under Section 42 of the 'Consolidation Act, 1948' are required to be adhering to the mandate of law encapsulated in Parkash Singh's case (2014(2) L.A.R. 1 = (2013) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 11728) besides are enjoined to also revere the judgment of even date rendered by this Court.

2) It appears that the non compliance(s) to the mandates as enclosed in this judgement do arise either because of sheer lack of knowledge or ill training(s) of the authorities contemplated under Section 42 of the 'Consolidation Act, 1948'. Therefore, the Additional Chief Secretary(ies) to the Governments of Punjab and Haryana, are directed to forthwith prepare data, thus revealing the numbers of unchallenged verdicts, which became recorded by the authorities contemplated under Section 42 of the 'Consolidation Act, 1948', especially when such verdicts are outside the contours and domains of judgment made today by this Court. The said data be collected and submitted before this Court on or before 15.07.2024.

3) Moreover, this Court has also consistently noticed that the Collectors concerned in making trials both over petitions cast under Section 7 and/or under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, though are required to be framing issues as arise from the contentious pleadings of the litigants concerned, and, whereafter they are required to be permitting the litigant concerned, to adduce the apposite evidence on those issues, whereons, the discharging onus becomes cast on the litigants concerned, but yet the said recourses remain un-adopted, thus leading to gross injustice.

4) The Collectors concerned are also not bearing in mind the principles relating to proof of demarcation reports through the author(s) thereof stepping into the witness box.

5) The appellate authorities concerned, while dealing with the applications for condoning the delay are also not formulating issues, on the contentious pleadings nor are they permitting the litigant concerned to adduce the evidence discharging onus thereons.

Directions given to Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue(s), to the State of Punjab and to the State of Haryana, to ensure, that trainings are imparted to the authorities contemplated under Section 42 of the 'Consolidation Act, 1948', besides to ensure that trainings are imparted to the Collectors and Appellate Authorities contemplated under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

(Para 18, 19)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Age of candidate -- For the appointment of Lambardar, age of the candidate is a relevant factor.

(Para 7)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Collector is the main authority for appointment of the Lambardar -- It is the Collector, who not only appreciates the antecedents of all the candidates in the fray, but also personally interacts with them -- Subjective satisfaction of the Collector cannot be ignored in a cavalier manner.

(Para 7)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 3, 18, 32, 33, 35 -- Impounding a power of attorney (UK)  – Deficient stamp duty – Right to pay deficient stamp duty and penalty -- Section 35 of the Act empowers the trial Court to direct the party who wants the documents to be acted upon, to pay stamp duty or the deficient portion together with penalty as detailed therein -- Time limit of three months provided under Section 18 and clause (b) of Section 32 is not attracted -- Petitioner permitted to pay the stamp duty and penalty.

(Para 13-14)

A. Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 3(i), 32(2)(g) -- Mutawalli – Rights to Mutawalliship and Sheikhship -- Jurisdiction of Waqf Board/ Tribunal -- Waqf Board exercised the jurisdiction in exercise of power conferred u/s 32(2)(g) read with the definition under Section 3(i) which defines a ‘Mutawalli’ – It is the Waqf Board which has got the jurisdiction and not the Waqf Tribunal – Waqf Tribunal is only an adjudicating authority over a dispute while the Waqf Board is expected to deal with any issue pertaining to administration.

(Para 2-11)

B. Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 83(5)(7) – Power of Waqf Tribunal -- Waqf Tribunal is deemed to be a civil court having the same powers that can be exercised by the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -- A dispute can be tried like a suit by the Waqf Tribunal -- Under Section 83(7) of the Waqf Act, the decision of the Tribunal shall be final and binding upon the parties and it shall have force of a decree made by a civil court.

(Para 9)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47A – Deficient stamp duty – Limitation -- Sale deed was registered and the reference was made by the Sub-Registrar to the Collector pertaining to alleged deficiency in stamp duty after a period of 9 years – Writ petition allowed and impugned orders quashed.

(Para 1-6)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Ad-valorem court fee – Rejection of plaint -- Suit for declaration challenging sale deed -- Plaintiff-petitioner is the executant of the registered sale deed -- Merely because the plaintiff-petitioner is not seeking possession would not entitle him from escaping from the rigors of affixing ad valorem court fee – Order directing plaintiff-petitioner to affix ad valorem court fee, upheld.

(Para 2, 7, 8)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 199 -- Cancellation of resolution of Gram Panchayat -- Resolution by Gram Panchayat for taking legal action against respondent No.4 and his family members for making false complaints – Held, filing of a complaint by any villager against others does not amount to creating nuisance authorizing the Gram Panchayat to take away the democratic rights of any villager – Resolution passed were found to be motivated due to factionalism in the village – Resolution did not even contain the signatures of the Sarpanch -- Authorities below have taken a concurrent view in cancelling the Resolutions – No infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 9)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 -- Ad-valorem court fee -- Suit for declaration qua the suit property to be coparcenary property of Joint Hindu Family of the parties and also challenged to the transfer deed -- Relief of permanent injunction also sought – Transfer deed was not executed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs and possession was not sought -- No ad valorem Court fee, is required to be filed.

(Para 2, 12, 13)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – Recommendation by revenue officer – Binding or not -- On evaluation of the inter se merits of all the candidates, the Collector found respondent No.4 to be the most meritorious and suitable candidate and thus, appointed him as Lambardar of the Village -- Report of the Assistant Collector 1st & 2nd Grade and the Sub Divisional Magistrate in which name of the petitioner was recommended to the Collector for appointment are to be taken into consideration but the same do not confer any right on the concerned candidate to be appointed as Lambardar of the Village -- Respondent No.4 was younger in age than the petitioner – No perversity in the orders passed by the Collector, Appellate and Revisional Authorities – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 4-7)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Qualification/ Intelligence – Cholice of Collector -- On the evaluation of inter se merits of all the candidates, respondent No.4 was found to be more meritorious and was appointed as lambardar of the village, which was upheld by the Appellate and Revisional Authority as well -- Qualification wise though respondent No.4 was found to be less educated than the petitioner, however he was found to be more matured and intelligent by the Collector -- Choice of the Collector cannot be interfered unless the same suffers from any perversity – No perversity in the impugned orders passed – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 8, 9)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7(i) – Advalorem court fee -- Suit for damages of specific amount – Court fee is payable according to the amount claimed.

(Para 12)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 22 Rules 3 & 4 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Legal representative -- Once the appointed Lambardar has died, it is obvious that de novo process for the appointment of the Lambardar needs to be initiated by making fresh munadi --  In view of the provisions of Order 22 Rules 3 & 4 CPC, the applicants in the application do not have any surviving right to sue in place of the petitioner -- Application filed for impleadment of the LRs is not maintainable.

(Para 8-13)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Revision with stay application – Non-decisioning of – Writ petition -- Mutation in the year 2005 by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade -- Divisional Commissioner set aside the  order passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade – Petitioner assailed the same by way of filing revision alongwith the stay application before the learned Financial Commissioner -- Despite number of adjournments, the stay application has not been decided till date by the learned Financial Commissioner – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to Financial Commissioner to take up the revision petition alongwith the stay application on the date fixed i.e. 07.03.2024 and decide the stay application expeditiously after hearing the parties in accordance with law – Till then status quo ordered.

(Para 2-5)

Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (1 of 1913), Sections 3(1) (2) and (3), 8, 15, 16 -- General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), Section 3(26) – Suit for Pre-emption right – Immovable property – Trial Court decreed the suit, upheld by High Court -- Immovable property is more than the land on which certain construction has been made --  As the notification dated 08.10.1985 limits its application for taking away the right of pre-emption only with reference to sale of land falling in the areas of any municipality, the same will not come to the rescue of the appellants/ purchaser -- Admittedly it is sale of immovable property, rolling mill had already been set up on the land, which was in occupation of the respondents as tenants.

(Para 1, 4, 11-19)

Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005), Section 2(f), 8(1) – Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (24 of 1961), Section 79 – Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, Rule 65 -- Information from Society – Public authority -- Exemption clause – Applicability of -- High Court held that petitioner/ society is not a ‘public authority’ but Assistant Registrar is a public authority and as per the powers conferred under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, the Assistant Registrar, petitioner/ society is bound to furnish the documents -- Held, information sought is also an information which is of importance to general public, absolutely no scope for interference -- Special leave petition dismissed.

(Para 1-3)

A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(iii), 7 – Exclusion from shamilat deh – Private respondents  assert a private partition amongst proprietors and their individual possession before 1950 -- Jamabandis do not record a partition of the 'Shamilat Khewat', much less the "cultivating possession" of individual landlords -- Land also continues to be recorded as "Shamilat Deh Hasab Hissa Mandarja Shajra Nasab", i.e. the joint ownership of proprietors -- If the land had, indeed, been partitioned, it would no longer be recorded as "Shamilat Deh Hasab Hissa Mandarja Shajra Nasab" but in the individual name of a landlord – Private oral partition before 1950, has not been proved – Land was recorded in pre and post consolidation Jamabandis as "Banjar Qadim" i.e. lands that have remained fallow for eight or more consecutive harvests -- Private respondents ordered to be evicted.

(Para 7, 8, 12)

B. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(iii), 11 – Question of title -- Maintainability of petition by Gram Panchayat -- Expression “person” as it existed in Section of Act, 1961, would include a statutory entity i.e. Gram Panchayat -- Moreover, deeming provision of preferring appeal at the instance of Gram Panchayat as enshrined in sub-Section (2) of Section 11 of Act, 1961, would ipso facto provides right to Gram Panchayat to file a petition as well, as appeal is but a continuation of petition – Held, Gram Panchayat was competent even prior to insertion of expression “Panchayat” in Section 11 of Act, 1961, vide Act No.25 of 1993 as the authority competent to claim question of title.

(Para 10)

C. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(iii), 7, 11 -- Eviction proceedings – Title dispute – Res-judicata -- Order, if any, passed under Section 7 of Act, 1961, is summary in nature and the findings recorded thereof does not operate as res judicata in the proceedings initiated for deciding a title suit under Section 11 of Act, 1961.

(Para 11)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(viii), 11 – Exclusion from shamilat deh – Gair marusi –Title -- Limited capacity of the plaintiff, as a gair marusi over the disputed land did not make him well entitled to become a recipient of the declaratory decree.

(Para 7)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – Age of candidate -- On comparison of the inter se merits of all the candidates in the fray, ld. Collector found the petitioner to be more meritorious and thus, appointed him as Lambardar of the Village -- Petitioner was 12 years younger in age than respondent No.5 – If the inter se merits of the candidates are otherwise at par then the candidate younger in age should be preferred -- Choice of the Collector cannot be interfered in a cavalier manner -- Appointment upheld by the Commissioner, however, the Financial Commissioner set aside the order without disclosing any perversity in the order passed by the Collector – Order passed by Financial Commissioner set aside.

(Para 6-9)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner had appointed different candidates as Lambardar of village -- Settled law is that the Collector is the prime authority for appointing a Lambardar – A learned Single Judge considered the entire matter and remanded the same to the Collector for a fresh decision as to who should be appointed as Lambardar of village -- No error, factual or legal, in the impugned judgment warranting any interference.

(Para 3, 4)

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 24(1) – Eviction u/s 24 (1) of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act – Validity of notices --  Adjudication made in Karambir’s case CWP No.14698 of 2023 : 2023(2) L.A.R. 638 -- Despite High Court has discounted the invocation of powers cast u/s 24 (1) of the Act by the Sarpanch of the Panchayat, yet the authority made brazen and arbitrary recourses to the provisions – No validly prepared demarcation report available with the Sarpanch, leading to arbitrary demolitions of structures – Registry of High Court directed to forthwith transmit the verdict to the Principal Secretary (Revenue), to the Government of Punjab and also to the Principal Secretary (Revenue), to the Government of Haryana, who shall thereafter transmit the same to all the Panchayats concerned, so that complete compliance is made by all concerned – If no actions have been taken on such arbitrarily issued notices, it shall be ensured that no further action is taken thereons -- Encroachments made on the land shall be removed, but only through recoursing the statutory provisions of the relevant statutes.

(Para 1-10)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Age – Qualification – Choice of Collector -- Petitioner though is younger in age and more qualified than respondent No.4 but respondent No.4 has served in the Army -- Respondent No.4 is 60 years of age and 8th pass -- No minimum qualification required for appointment of Lambardar -- As per Mandate of Rule 15, respondent No.4 has been found to be the most suitable candidate for the post -- All the authorities have given a concurrent finding – Choice of the Collector should not be disturbed in a cavalier manner -- No merit in the petition, dismissed.

(Para 5)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16(1), 116 -- Mode of partition – Challenge to -- Appeal – Revision – Maintainability of -- Petitioners had filed the appeal under Section 16(1) of the Act, whereas as per the mandate of Section 16(1) of the Act, revision is maintainable – Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file the revision petition before the Commissioner.

(Para 3-6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Bail – Life and liberty -- Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception – This principle finds its roots in one of the most distinguished fundamental rights, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Though the underlying objective behind detention of a person is to ensure easy availability of an accused for trial, without any inconvenience, however, in case the presence of an accused can be secured otherwise, then detention is not compulsory.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Bail – Speedy trial -- Life and liberty -- Right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained person -- However, while deciding application for regular bail, the Courts shall also take into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal jurisprudence, which is “the presumption of innocence”, besides the gravity of offence(s) involved.

(Para 6)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail -- Petitioner is involved in two other criminal cases, however, petitioner has been granted the concession of bail in one case, the other FIR is under RP (UP) Act -- Co-accused, from whom mobile has been recovered, has been enlarged on bail by the learned trial Court -- Trial is at its initial stage and is not likely to conclude anytime soon, as out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, none has yet been examined -- Therefore, keeping the petitioner behinds the bars, who has undergone incarceration of 6 months 6 day would serve no purpose – Bail allowed.

(Para 10)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7(1) -- Encroachment on public street -- Eviction – Maintainability of petition -- Section 7(1) of the Act of 1961 shows that an application for putting the Gram Panchayat in possession can be filed by the concerned Panchayat or by the officer duly authorized in this behalf by the State Government -- In application, respondent no.4 neither averred that he had been authorized by the Gram Panchayat or by the State Government to file an application on behalf of the Gram Panchayat nor any material was produced to show that he was authorized by the State Government to invoke the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Act of 1961 – Therefore, the application was not maintainable -- Impugned order quashed and set aside -- Liberty reserved to the BDPO, or to the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned, to move an application u/s 7 of the Act of 1961, before the Collector concerned.

(Para 2, 7-10)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- Only the averments made in the plaint are to be considered -- Defence taken by the other party in the written statement or otherwise would be wholly irrelevant at this stage -- There cannot be any dissection or segregation of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint.

(Para 9)

B. Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 – Ad-valorem court fee -- Petitioners were not executants of the sale deeds and power of attorney in question -- Petitioners have sought declaration to the effect that they are joint owners and in joint possession of the suit property, which was ancestral in the hands of their father qua them -- Petitioners have also sought decree for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from creating charge over the suit property and further restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of petitioners over the suit property -- Reading of plaint, nowhere suggests that the petitioners being ousted from the suit property are claiming its possession/ joint possession -- Petitioners cannot be asked to affix advolrem Court fee.

(Para 10-13)

A. Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (11 of 1995), Section 45 – Residual claim left over by RERA – Maintainability of revision before Government -- When the respondent left aside the residual claims and restricted her prayers in consonance with the provisions of the RERA Act only, specifically u/s  18 thereof, then it could be said that filing of revision petition before the Government u/s 45 of the PRTPD Act was the only appropriate alternative remedy -- No challenge to the order passed by the Chief Administrator, PUDA was made as projected by the appellant -- Such objection was neither taken by the appellant before the Authority nor before the Appellate Tribunal and was raised for the first time at this belated stage only does not hold any substance and therefore, challenge on this ground cannot be sustained.

(Para 14)

B. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (16 of 2016), Section 2(zk) – Promoter – Development Authority -- Definition of promoter explicitly covers “Development Authority”, therefore, there remains no doubt that appellant was very well covered within the ambit of promoter as stipulated under the RERA Act.

(Para 16)

C. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (16 of 2016), Section 18 -- Delay in possession – Interest for delayed period -- Basic amenities – Requirement of – “as is where is” basis – Effect of -- Appellate Tribunal held respondent entitle to interest on delayed possession -- If on account of presence of this clause in the allotment letter, appellant could be absolved of any liability, then there was no need for it to invest its resources and time in this work -- “development work” was the responsibility of the appellant -- Mere physical possession without any basic amenities would serve no purpose as to carry out construction work and commercial activity over the site in question, the respondent required all necessary basic amenities -- To start the construction work at a site, many machineries require supply of electricity which was a basic amenity, therefore, Appellate Tribunal rightly held that the sites were ready for possession on 19.10.2017 only -- No concession can be claimed by the appellant/ Development Authority being State in comparison to a private promoter -- Order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, upheld.

(Para 2, 17-23)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 19-B -- Appointment of SC Lambardar -- Christian candidate – Eligibility of -- Respondent No.4 belongs to the Christian community, as per mandate of Rule 19-B, he was eligible -- Collector hold respondent No.4 ineligible -- Commissioner set aside the order and remanded the case for decision afresh -- Financial Commissioner upheld the order of remand – Held, order passed by the District Collector suffered from perversity, rightly set aside -- District Collector directed to decide expeditiously within a period of three months.

(Para 5-7)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Appointing authority of -- Collector is the prime authority for the appointment of Lambardar and he is in a better situation to assess the candidature of all the candidates in fray taking into consideration their overall merits and demerits.

(Para 7)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Age of candidate – Consideration of -- A candidate who is younger in age should be given the preference.

(Para 7)

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 23 -- Market value of acquired land – Three different revenue estates – As a whole towards north, the acquired land abuts already developed Industrial Area, whereas on the Southern side, there is Yamuna Nagar – Jagadhari Corporation building and the eastern side portion abuts the State Highway with number of industrial and commercial units existing in the adjoining vicinity -- Three revenue estates forming part of the acquisition proceedings in the case cannot be treated differently.

(Para 13, 14)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 23 -- Market value of acquired land – Agreement to sell – Reliance upon -- Registered agreement to sell duly proved on record -- Agreement in question besides the sale consideration mentioned therein being bona fide and genuine was required to be taken count.

(Para 16)

C. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 23 -- Market value of acquired land – Old sale deed – Increase upon -- There has been a difference of around 10 to 12 months between the three sale deeds and the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act, an appropriate increase of 12% needs to be applied.

(Para 18)

D. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 23, 28 -- Market value of acquired land – Agreement to sell for land measuring 73 kanals 01 marla of land -- As per the agreement, the sale consideration was Rs. 96 lakh per acre – Land under acquisition as a contiguous unit was touching the Industrial Area, Phase-I developed by the appellant-HSIIDC, from one side and the National Highway 73-A on the other, all basic amenities, such as water, electricity, sewerage etc., besides other necessary infrastructure were already existing in the close vicinity of the acquired land and was just required to be expanded further for the purpose of development of Phase-II, Industrial Estate -- Besides considering the locational and potential value of the same, a cut of 20% instead of 40-45% was more than sufficient – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 54,65,600/- per acre, besides grant of all other statutory benefits as provided under Sections 23(2), 23(1-A) of the Act as well as interest in terms of Section 28 of the Act.

(Para 19, 20)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 158 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Partition of land – Challenge to – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Against order passed by A.C., 1st Grade, the plaintiffs were having statutory remedy of filing an appeal to the Collector -- Said remedy was not availed by the plaintiffs – In the instant case, question of title has not been decided by the revenue officer during the partition proceedings -- Civil Court have no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit filed by the plaintiffs – Suit dismissed.

(Para 14, 15)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 45 – Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (42 of 1976), Section 396 -- Temporary injunction – Making of dump over suit property by Municipal Corporation – Non-serving of notice u/s 396 of M. Corp. Act 1976 -- Objection as to Maintainability of suit -- Jamabandi entries in favour of plaintiff -- There is presumption in favour of the entries recorded in the record of rights i.e. jamabandi – Defendants/ Municipal Corporation not having any document in their favour and have not been able to demarcate the land -- Possession of the property on the vacant plot always vests with owner and even if the garbage is being thrown on the same by the public, it does not divest the true owner from its possession -- Use of property as a dump has no right to change the nature of the property -- Defendants can install the compactor at any other place -- Revision petition allowed, application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction allowed and the defendants-respondents restrained from making a dump over the suit property.

(Para 4, 11-14)

A. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17, 49 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 107 -- Unregistered lease deed – Collateral purpose -- Nature and character of possession contained in a flawed document (being unregistered) in terms Section 107 of the 1882 Act and Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act can form collateral purpose when the “nature and character of possession” is not the main term of the lease and does not constitute the main dispute for adjudication by the Court.

(Para 13)

B. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17, 49 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 107 -- Unregistered lease deed – Nature of possession – Primary dispute -- Nature and character of possession constitutes the primary dispute -- Court excluded by law from examining the unregistered deed for that purpose.

(Para 13)

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (37 of 1966),  Section 22, 33, 37 -- Conversion of land -- Non-residential to ‘residential’ purpose – Condition of amenity space – Landowners accepted the condition of conversion and entered into agreement with the Municipal Council transferring the 10% ‘amenity space’ in favour of the Municipal Council -- Such a clause cannot be held to be illegal – ‘amenity space’ consists of trees which are aged about 100 years or more -- Landowners/plot holders permitted to make a representation to the Municipal Council for providing/ transferring another piece of land on the same road having the same or near about the same area, Municipal Council to consider in accordance with law -- Directions given under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in order to protect the trees that are aged 100 years or older. Narayanrao Jagobaji Gowande Public Trust’s case (2016) 4 SCC 443 relied.

(Para 2, 22-26)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 44 – Jamabandi entries – Rebuttable presumption -- At the first stance entries carry presumption of truth, which is rebuttable.

(Para 8)

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), Section 3, 4, 5, 7 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Illegal construction on government road/ public property – Expedite eviction – Writ petition -- Gram Panchayat filed eviction petition against 26 illegal occupants – Writ petition disposed of with direction to DDPO-cum-Collector to conclude the proceedings as initiated expeditiously preferably, within three months.

(Para 1-4)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7(IV) – Advalorem court fee -- Suit for declaration that sale deed is wrong, illegal, null, void, ab initio, false and frivolous document -- Land in dispute is an agricultural land, the cheque given to the plaintiff towards sale consideration was dishonoured and he has set up a case that he is in possession of the property and has not made any prayer for grant of decree of possession – Petitioner will pay the court fee 10 times of the revenue payable and not on the value of the property or the sale deed.

(Para 6-8)

A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11, 13 -- Panchayat land -- Decision of claims of right, title or interest – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- Exclusive power conferred to the Collector to decide the right, title or interest in any land, vested or deemed to have vested in a Panchayat -- Any person claiming that any land has not been so vested in the Panchayat is also required to file a suit u/s 11 of the 1961 Act in the Court of the Collector -- Jurisdiction of the Civil Court excluded to decide such questions.

(Para 4, 5)

B. Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (31 of 1950), Section 2(d) – Evacuee -- Evacuee property is that property which was left behind the persons who migrated to Pakistan pursuant to the disturbances when the country was being partitioned between India and Pakistan.

(Para 6)

C. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11, 13 – Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (31 of 1950), Section 27 -- Panchayat land -- Evacuee – Decision of claims of right, title or interest – Provisions of the 1961 Act will prevail over the provisions of the 1950 Act -- Custodian General came to a conclusion that the property does not belong to the Gram Panchayat -- Section 27 of the 1950 Act does not enable the Custodian General to pass orders --  Order passed by the Custodian General is not sustainable, set aside -- Plaintiff shall be entitled to file an application for revival of the proceedings filed u/s 11 of the 1961 Act or file a fresh one -- Collector u/s 11 of the 1961 Act will decide the question of vesting of the land in the Gram Panchayat, independently, in accordance with law.

(Para 14-23)

Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977), Section 15(2) – Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations, 1978, Regulation 6 – Auction sale – Rejection of higher bid – Challenge to -- Hotel sites were not properly depicted in the advertisement and the sectors were not mentioned – Three bidders for Hotel Site No.II – Administrator had wisely cancelled the bid by noticing that there was a difference in reserve price also and secondly that the advertisement was not clear as the location and sectors were not shown – Refund of deposited amount with interest @ 8 % p.a ordered.

(Para 9, 10)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- On the comparison of the inter-se merits, name of respondent No.5 was recommended by the SDM and the Naib Tehsildar and finally the Collector appointed him as a Lambardar  -- Appeal and revision of the petitioner challenging the appointment dismissed – Held, choice of the Collector should not be disturbed in a cavalier manner -- It is the Collector, who not only appreciates the record of the candidates but also personally interacts with them – No perversity in the conclusion drawn by the Collector and thereafter, affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities  -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 7-10)

A. Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (1 of 1994), Section 122 – Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, Rule 5, 6, 80 -- Recounting of votes – Non-making of request to returning officer – Effect of – Election petition for recounting – Maintainability of -- Petitioner having failed to make any application in writing for re-counting of votes and having failed to seek relief of declarations as required under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1995, the Election Petition filed by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer (R) seeking relief of re-counting of votes alone was not maintainable.

(Para 3, 15)

B. Interpretation -- Where a right or a liability is created by a statue, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by the statue must be availed of -- If a Statue provides for doing a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner.

(Para 12)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – One candidate -- Fresh munadi -- Petitioner is the grandson of the deceased Lambardar -- There were only three applications received and the rest candidates did not remain in fray and thus, the petitioner was the only available candidate -- View taken by the learned Financial Commissioner in accepting the revision and remanding the case for appointment of Lambardar by making fresh Munadi is well reasoned order passed to meet the ends of justice by providing fair opportunity to all the interested candidates of the village.

(Para 5)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 – Gram Panchayat land -- Gair Dakhildar -- Right of Marusi -- It is a well-established law that a non-occupant tenant cannot acquire the status and right of Marusi and claim ownership -- Petitioners have been evidently recorded as 'Gair Dakildar' in the relevant revenue record(s), right from the very inception – Held, petitioners cannot acquire the status and right of Marusi and consequently claim ownership.

(Para 7, 8)

Haryana Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 2(5a) -- Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Surplus area -- Letter/ Instructions qua the land of the petitioners issuing general directions to the Naib Tehsildar to change the mutation in the revenue record in favour of the State Government on the basis of an order passed by Prescribed Authority-cum-Collector – Petitioner submitted that the order already set aside and reviewed – Writ petition disposed of with direction to the Deputy Commissioner to treat writ petition as representation and take necessary decision thereon as per law within a period of four weeks.

(Para 1-6)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Appointment of Lambardar – FIR against appointed candidate – Non-consideration of – Effect of – Petitioner was younger in age and was more qualified – Nothing adverse found against the petitioner -- FIR u/s 325, 323, 148, 149 of IPC was found to have been registered against the respondent No.5 (appointed candidate) though was acquitted – FIR has not been dealt with by respondent-authorities while arriving at the final decision – Impugned orders suffer from perversity, set aside – Case remanded back to the Collector for deciding afresh.

(Para 6, 7)

A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 54 -- Transfer of property -- Sale deed – Non-entering of  mutation – Effect of -- Mutation is merely an entry in the revenue record, which reflects the factum of transfer of property, however, the ownership is transferred by way of sale deed -- Hence, failure on the part of the plaintiff to get the land mutated in his favour would not be relevant.

(Para 7)

B. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 65, Section 27 – Suit for possession – Limitation -- Owner can file a suit for possession as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 till the time, the defendant proves his title by way of the adverse possession.

(Para 8)

C. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 54 – Suit for possession -- Sale deed – Purchase of residential plot -- Requirement of the plaintiff to file a suit for partition – Property is not an agricultural land -- It is in the form of residential plots -- Plaintiff as well as defendant have purchased the specific plots -- Plaintiff has claimed possession of plot, which has been decreed by both the Courts below -- No ground to interfere – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 10-14)