A. Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973, Rule 20 -- Cancellation of allotment of plot -- Affidavit of not owning of any other plot or dwelling unit -- Petitioner allotted a dwelling unit after her declaration to the Society -- No valid ground to cancel her allotment.

(Para 12)

B. Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973, Rule 20 -- Power of attorney – Cancellation of allotment of plot – Transferring the lease hold rights in the property to attorney before the expiry of 15 years in violation of the condition no. 15 of the allotment letter -- Petitioner denied such transfer to her attorney -- She asserted that she was settled in USA and therefore, she had executed a power of attorney in favour of her friend for the proper management of the site/unit – No registered assignment of lease hold rights in favour of her attorney on record -- In the absence thereof it is difficult to come to a conclusion about the factum of transfer -- Cancellation order was passed more than twenty eight years after the allotment -- Cancellation on this ground would not be justified -- Petition allowed, impugned orders quashed.

(Para 13, 14)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Title dispute -- Vacation of interim relief – Writ jurisdiction -- No reason recorded, which called for vacation of interim relief by ADC -- Writ petition disposed of with the direction that petition u/s 11 of the PVCL Act filed by the petitioners be finally decided by the ADC within a period of three months -- Till then, status quo with regard to possession maintained.

(Para 3-6)

A. Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 7 -- Shamilat deh – Eviction of unauthorised occupant – Destructive stands -- Two stands are mutually destructive inasmuch as, on one hand, the petitioner is claiming ownership of the land in question and at the same time, he is seeking protection of his possession as a “tenant” -- Mutually destructive stands are not permissible in law.

(Para 16)

B. Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 7 – Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 19 -- Shamilat deh – Vesting of -- No document to substantiate plea that petitioner is a tenant under the Gram Panchayat – Still further, petitioner has not challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, findings have been returned that though the suit property is the ownership of the Gram Panchayat but the same is possessed by the plaintiff -- In view of the facts & circumstances and also the provisions contained in Section 7 read with Section 2(g) of the Act, 1961 and Rule 19 of the Rules, 1964; the land in dispute vests with the Gram Panchayat.

(Para 17-21)

C. Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) – Shamilat deh -- Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hassab Rasad -- Jumla Malkan -- Mushtarka Malkan – Explanation appended to sub Section 6 of Section 2(g) of the Act, 1961 clearly states that the lands entered in the column of ownership of record of rights as “Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hassab Rasad”, “Jumla Malkan” or “Mushtarka Malkan” shall be shamilat deh within the meaning of this section.

(Para 22)

D. Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 7 -- Shamilat deh -- Eviction proceedings – Res-judicata -- It is well settled that the proceedings u/s 7 of the Act, 1961 are summary in nature and the principles of res judicata are not attracted thereto.

(Para 25)

E. Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7(2) – Shamilat deh – Eviction of Unauthorised occupant – Penalty -- Since the petitioner had continued in illegal and unauthorised possession of the land in dispute measuring198 Kanals - 2 Marlas, the penalty @ 1% of the Collector rate of the land per acre per annum, as provided under Section 7(2) of the Act, 1961, upon the petitioner imposed w.e.f. the date of filing of the eviction petition up to the date of taking over the possession of the land in dispute from the petitioner -- DDPO to determine the total amount of penalty in terms of Section 7(2) of the Act, 1961 and shall ensure that the said penalty amount does not exceed 10% of the current Collector rate on the date when the said amount is deposited in terms of Section 7(2) of the Act, 1961.

(Para 34-36)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11, 13 -- Gram Panchayat Deh – Shamilat deh – Ownership dispute – Jurisdiction of civil court – Rejection of plaint -- Suit to declare the plaintiff owner in possession by way of adverse possession – Civil Court refused to reject the plaint on the ground that the property is not a shamilat deh land – Held, the question as to whether the suit property is or is not shamilat deh is required to be decided by the Collector and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been specifically excluded -- Plaintiff claims that he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession -- Such a question exclusively falls within the domain of the Collector empowered under Section 11 of the 1961 Act -- Revision petition allowed, order passed by the trial Court set aside being unsustainable -- Plaint shall stand rejected -- However, the plaintiff shall have the liberty to file proceedings under Section 11 of the 1961 Act.

(Para 3-9)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Collusive proclamation – Writ jurisdiction -- Merely because one of the applicants was the father of the petitioner collusion cannot be inferred -- Two other candidates had also applied and there is no evidence that either of them was closely related to the petitioner – Petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by Collector, upset by Commissioner and Financial Commissioner – Writ allowed, impugned orders set quashed and appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar is upheld.

(Para 2-5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 111 – Partition of land in different khewats -- Clubbing of applications for partition -- Assistant Collector dismissed the application for clubbing  by concluding that some of the co-owners in the various khewats are different and not common, therefore, the various partition applications cannot be clubbed together – Held,

-- While partitioning the agricultural land, the competent officer is required to ensure that a particular co-sharer is allocated a compact parcel of land in order to enable them to utilize the land economically.

-- Fragmentation of land holdings of an agriculturalist in different parcels which are separately located is never in the benefit of a farmer.

-- It becomes difficult to cultivate the agricultural land if it is located in small parcels in a fragmented manner. State of Punjab has already enacted the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, in order to consolidate the land holdings of the farmers.

Order of Assistant Collector 1st Grade’s order set aside, Assistant Collector First Grade requested to consolidate all the three different applications, for the partition of land after grant an opportunity of hearing to all the co-sharers of all the three khewats before partitioning the property.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 13-B -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 45 – Mutation entry – Challenge to -- Jurisdiction of civil Court -- Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act shall be applicable only in a case where the plaintiff wants to protect his possession on the basis of his name in the mutation record and/or revenue record -- However, any dispute with respect to mutation entry can only be before the revenue authorities only -- Suit before the Civil Court challenging the mutation entry was not maintainable at all and there was a bar of filing the civil suit.

(Para 3-7)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Multiple cause of action – Civil suit – Limitation -- Suit can be filed within three years from the accrual of the initial cause of action, however, any successive violation of rights after institution of the suit would not give fresh cause of action to file a suit -- If the suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation would commence from the date when the right to sue first accrued.

(Para 13)

B. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 44 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 – Consolidation proceedings -- Jurisdiction of civil court -- Consolidation Authorities allotted 15 kanal 5 marla land of lesser value to the defendant as per his entitlement in lieu of 7 kanal 12 marla of standard land during consolidation -- Plaintiff till date has not challenged the order of Consolidation Authorities -- In case, the plaintiff was aggrieved by any such order, he should have challenged it before the authorities empowered under the Consolidation Act, which admittedly was not done -- Jurisdiction of the Civil Court barred -- Civil Court cannot derive jurisdiction beyond the statute by merely giving it a colour for a suit of declaration.

(Para 15)

C. Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34, 44 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Mutation – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- Mutation is only entered to update the revenue records and it not being a document of title does not confer any right on any person whatsoever -- Correctness of mutation cannot be challenged by plaintiff in a civil suit.

(Para 16)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 -- Maintainability of suit for simplicitor declaration -- If the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land, he cannot file a simpliciter suit for declaration and injunction without claiming possession thereof.

(Para 20)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Letters Patent Appeal -- Appointment of Lambardar -- No disqualification assigned to appointment of respondent No. 5 -- Appellant is more meritorious on all aspects including education, land as also the standing that itself would not be a ground for setting aside the appointment of respondent No. 5 when there is no illegality in the process of appointment.

(Para 6)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Letters Patent Appeal -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Hereditary claim – Comparative merit, apart from the other characteristics of a person, has been taken note of by the Collector while assessing the comparative status of the candidates while making an appointment -- Hereditary aspect, was not the sole consideration, appointed candidate had been helping his uncle in performing the duties of the Lambardar and, therefore, would be conversant with the procedure – All the revenue authorities found the appointment in accordance with law – Held, comparative merit cannot be assessed by the Court nor can the Court act as an appellate authority – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 7-9)

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (XLI of 1966), Section 40 -- Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971, Rule 10(1) – Transfer of Flat -- No Objection Certificate from the Collector – Requirement of -- Land in question allotted to the builder who had participated in the bid in response to a public notice -- Said builder was required to construct the building on the said land costing not less than Rs.10 lakhs and to sell the same for the purpose of private residence -- It is after the said builder sold the flats to the individual buyers, they formed a Co-operative Society in the year 1977 in which Society the ownership of the land came to be transferred by the said builder – It is not a case where the land is allotted to a Co-operative Society by the Government -- Held, since the land was not allotted to a society but to a builder on lease, who has constructed flats for private individuals, who have subsequently formed a Co-operative Society, the 1983 Resolution and 1999 Resolution would not be applicable to the members of such a society.

(Para 13-15)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Acquittal in criminal case -- Merely because there has been an acquittal in the criminal matter, it does not give a clean chit to the appellant -- Registration of case in itself cannot be a ground for not considering the case of the appellant especially when he has been acquitted prior to the date of appointment -- What is required to be taken note of by the Collector is the effect of such a case having been registered and the resultant acquittal thereof.

(Para 7)

Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 5-A, 5-B – Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 3(2)(ii), 12 – Shamilat deh -- Sale of land for plantation purpose to PWD (B&R) – Permissibility of -- Although the change of user of shamlat deh land is permissible for plantation purposes but such permissible user can be effected either by the Gram Panchayat at its own level or through another as envisaged under Rule 3 of Rules, 1964 -- However, sale of land by Panchayat in favour of any Government Department for “plantation” would not fall within the parameters envisaged under Section 5B of the Act, 1961 read with Rule 12 of the Rules, 1964 as applicable to the State of Haryana – Held such sale was not permissible.

(Para 14-19)

A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 11 – Shamilat deh – Eviction petition – Title dispute – Scope of summary proceedings -- Parties had raised question of title and the ld. Collector and the ld. Appellate Authority decided the matter in an exceptional hurry, without even granting proper opportunity to both the parties to place on record to their respective evidence before the same -- In such cases, the effective recourse for the Collector would have been to undertake such an exercise by expanding the scope of proceedings from Section 7 to Section 11 of the Act as the eviction proceedings under Section 7 of the Act are summary in nature and such summary proceedings can cause prejudice to either party.

(Para 13)

B. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 7 -- Abadi deh – Exclusive use as abadi deh – Common purposes usage -- Shamilat deh -- Eviction petition – Maintainability of – It was to be seen as to whether the land was exclusively used as 'Abadi Deh', then it would not have been included in the 'Shamlat Deh' and the petition u/s 7 of the Act on behalf of Gram Panchayat in respect of such land would not have been maintainable -- If the land fell within 'Abadi Deh' and was used or reserved for the benefit of village community including the pond, then it would be included in the definition of 'Shamlat Deh' and the Gram Panchayat would be entitled to maintain a petition u/s 7 of the Act.

(Para 14)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Criminal case against candidates – Non-consideration by Collector – This would be a relevant consideration which has been kept open for the Collector to go into and form his own opinion – Remand order upheld.

(Para 1-4)

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 4(2) – Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (8 of 1954), Section 50(a) – Constitution of India, Article 254 – Challenge to Section 50(a) of Delhi Reforms Act, 1954 – Repugnancy in two Acts -- Concurrent list III -- Question of repugnancy would not come into existence unless it is first established that both enactments are under the Concurrent list (List III) – 1954 Act is not referable to any matter enumerated in List III but it is referable to Entry 18 of List II -- Thus, no question of repugnancy would arise in view of Article 254 of the Constitution.

(Para 18, 19)

B. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 4(2) – General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), Section 6(b) (c) -- Repeal of Section 4(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Prospective effect -- Deletion of Section 4(2) took place w.e.f 09.09.2005 therefore, the effect of the deletion can only be in respect of successions which opened on or after 09.09.2005 -- This is because under Section 6(b) and 6(c) of the General Clauses Act repeal cannot affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed and cannot affect any right which may have been acquired or accrued.

(Para 23-25)

C. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 4(2) – Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (8 of 1954), Section 50(a) – Repeal of Section 4(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 w.e.f. 09.09.2005 – Prospective effect -- Property in question is agricultural property, and therefore, in 1997 on death, the devolution of interest (inheritance) would be determinable on the said date, in accordance with the law existing at that time -- Subsequent deletion would not have any impact on the rights of inheritance, which had already accrued and crystallised, prior to the amendment -- Even existence of Section 4(2) in the 1956 Act and its deletion will not have any impact for the reason that the 1954 Act, is a special law, dealing with fragmentation, ceiling, and devolution of tenancy rights over agricultural holdings only, whereas the 1956 Act is a general law, providing for succession to a Hindu by religion as stated in Section 2 thereof -- Existence or absence of Section 4(2) in the 1956 Act would be immaterial.

(Para 21-26)

D. Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (8 of 1954), Section 50(a) – Constitution of India, Article 14, 15, 21, 254 – Challenge to Section 50(a) of Delhi Reforms Act, 1954 -- Gender bias/ women empowerment  -- There can be no challenge to the 1954 Act as the said legislation is included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India.

(Para 28)

E. Amendment in statute -- Prospective effect -- It is well settled that all amendments are deemed to apply prospectively unless expressly specified to apply retrospectively or intended to have been done so by the legislature.

(Para 23)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984), Section 102, 128 – Jurisdiction of civil Court – Rejection of plaint -- Question of law is whether in view of Section 102 read with Section 128 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies  Act, 1984, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred? – Prayer is to grant a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 to hand over the complete documents with a consequential relief of declaration that conveyance deed in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 is illegal and liable to be set aside.

-- Though the trial Court allowed the application, however, the lower appellate Court recorded a finding that since in the civil suit, there is pleading of fraud with regard to execution of the conveyance deed, on the basis of certain documents, which were prepared by the defendants in collusion with each other, therefore, the Civil Court will have jurisdiction and the plaint is not liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

-- The lower appellate Court also recorded a finding that Section 102 read with Sections 128 & 130 of the Act deals with reference of the dispute to an Arbitrator and regarding bar of jurisdiction of the Courts, however, nothing is stated under Section 128 of the Act that jurisdiction of the Civil Court will be barred, if a suit is filed on the basis of fraud.

-- At the stage of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court is primarily to see the pleadings in the plaint or the documents attached with the plaint.

In the plaint, it is specifically pleaded that conveyance deed has been executed in favour of defendant No.2 by playing fraud -- Therefore, question of law decided in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff -- No illegality or infirmity with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court.

(Para 2-8)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 200(1) – Panchayat matter -- Appointment of Administrator – Challenge to -- Within the time prescribed, the Gram Panchayat was unable to pass a resolution for carrying out the development works -- One of the Panches defected to the other side and because of this quorum was incomplete -- No resolution could have been passed for executing the development works – DDPO was justified in passing an order of appointment of Administrator – Writ dismissed

(Para 3, 4)

Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 66 -- Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, Rule 33 -- Election of Panch – Recounting of Votes -- As per the election petitioner (respondent No.4) four votes were wrongly rejected, whereas as per the petitioner (respondent in the election petition) only two votes were rejected -- There is no clarity from the order as to how many votes were in fact rejected -- Order set aside leaving it open to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Election Tribunal, to pass a fresh order within 15 days on the issue of recounting of votes.

(Para 2-6)

Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 66 -- Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, Rule 33 -- Election of Sarpanch -- Re-counting of votes – Non-speaking order -- Order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Election Tribunal, ordering re-count of the votes for the post of Sarpanch cannot sustain, as the said order is a non-speaking one without considering and detailing the reasons and the evidence on which it is based -- Order, set aside and direction issued to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Election Tribunal, to re-consider the matter and pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law within a period of 15 days -- Writ petition allowed.

(Para 4-6)

Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 9(1)(i) – Ejectment of tenant -- A big land owner (owner owning land in excess of the permissible area) and every tenant holding land in excess of the permissible area was duty bound to furnish a declaration disclosing the extent of the land owned by him -- No such duty has been cast upon a small land owner (person holding land less than the permissible area) -- Thus, the submission that a small land owner was required to get a declaration to this effect is illogical – Held, a small land owner is not required in law to approach the concerned authorities for such a declaration – Petitioners/tenants could also have produced proof by way of revenue record to establish that respondent No. 5 was a big land owner but nothing of the kind was done -- Petitioners cannot escape eviction.

(Para 6-8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 121, 158 -- Partition of land – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Bar of Section 158 of the Land Revenue Act, 1887 -- Rejection of plaint -- Suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the exclusive owners in possession of the suit land with declaration that the order passed by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, partitioning the property is null, void and beyond jurisdiction – Application for rejection of plaint dismissed -- Held, power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC can be exercised only if the court comes to a definite conclusion that the suit is barred by law -- It is a well settled principle that under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the plaint cannot be rejected partly -- A plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all -- Hence, no ground to interfere is made out – Revision dismissed.

(Para 1-6)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 13, 13-A -- Shamilat deh – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Primary question which arises for adjudication would be, “As to whether the land meant for the construction of school playground is Shamlat deh or not?” – Section 13 bars the jurisdiction of the court to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any land or other immovable property is Shamlat deh or not -- Exclusive jurisdiction to decide such question vests with the Collector.

(Para 3)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 16(1)(f) -- Conviction of Lambardar u/s 420, 467 & 468 IPC – Release on probation – Moral turpitude -- Dismissal of Lambardar – Held, Rule 16(1)(f) provides for dismissal even on account of conviction in a case involving moral turpitude -- Petitioner has been convicted in a case of cheating and forgery and the same involves moral turpitude -- Thus, the authorities below were justified in dismissing the petitioner.

(Para 1-3)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 35 (For Punjab) -- Suit for specific performance -- Unregistered agreement to sell with possession – Agreement to sell insufficiently stamped -- Impounding of document by Trial Court – Penalty equal to 10 times of deficiency – Trial Court has interpreted Section 35 of the 1899 Act in a manner as if imposition of penalty of 10 times is mandatory, this is not the correct position of law – There is no evidence that the plaintiff was in the knowledge of the amendment carried out and he, intentionally, evaded the payment of the stamp duty --  Court considered appropriate to direct the plaintiff to pay the amount of deficient stamp duty along with an equal amount as penalty.

(Para 5-7)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Mutation – Civil Court decree – Duty of Revenue officers -- It is duty of revenue officials to incorporate the decree in the revenue record in letter and spirit and the impugned order dismissing the application for entering the mutations, cannot be upheld in any manner -- Petition allowed, Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, directed to sanction the mutations in terms of the Civil Court decree in letter and spirit, within a period of 15 days.

(Para 12)

A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Shamilat deh – Eviction order set aside in appeal – Writ petition -- Delay and laches of 34 years – Gram Panchayat challenging the order passed on 08.02.1988 – No explanation, only submission, that the Commissioner did not have the jurisdiction to pass an order dated 08.02.1988 and, therefore, the said order would be null and void -- When confronted with the statutory provisions, the counsel has not been able to substantiate the same – Writ petition dismissed on delay and laches.

(Para 1, 2)

B. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7 – Allotment of land – Breach of condition – Onus to prove – Eviction -- Case of the Gram Panchayat for eviction hinges is that the land was given to the forefather of the private respondents by the village community on the condition that they would hand over the land back to the village community if they ceased to provide artisan services as carpenter and blacksmith to the village community and that since these private respondents have ceased to provide such artisan services, they are liable to be evicted from the land – Onus was on the Gram Panchayat to establish that there was any stipulation at the time of allotment of land -- Merely because some of the family members have adopted some other professions does not in itself mean that the said persons are liable to be evicted from the land in question, especially when nothing has come on record, which would indicate that it was a conditional allotment of land to the forefathers.

(Para 3,4)

C. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 7 – Unauthorised possession -- Respondents had never paid anything to the Gram Panchayat as rent or share of the produce -- They had, however, been paying land revenue like other land owners -- Forefathers of the private respondents have been occupying the land much prior to the period of 12 years before the commencement of the 1961 Act and, thus, they cannot be said to be in unauthorized occupation of the land and, therefore, they are not liable to be evicted from the land being unauthorized occupants.

(Para 6)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appeal and stay application pending before Joint Development Commissioner – Non decisioning of – Writ jurisdiction -- Earlier stay application for constructed portion decided – Second application for stay for entire land pending -- In order to avoid any further delay in disposal of the appeal, Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions with a direction to Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab to decide the stay application(s) afresh expeditiously, preferably within a period of 15 days on receiving a certified copy of the order -- Till the time the stay application(s) is decided by respondent No. 2/appellate authority, the status quo shall be maintained.

(Para 7)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Correction in revenue record – Writ jurisdiction -- Note in the revenue record that the property of the petitioner is under mortgage – Submitted that said entry is illegal and, thus, an application has been moved for removal of the note but no action has been taken and thus legal notice issued -- Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the pending legal notice by passing a speaking order within twelve weeks.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Revision/ Stay application pending before Financial Commissioner – Non-consideration of – Writ jurisdiction – Revision and stay application filed on 13.10.2021 but the same has not been taken up for consideration – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to Financial Commissioner to take up the pending revision petition on the next date of hearing along with the stay application -- Till the decision of the stay application, there shall be a stay of dispossession.

(Para 1-6)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Pendency of revision before Financial Commissioner – Stay declined -- Writ jurisdiction -- Petitioner confines his prayer for a direction to the Financial Commissioner to decide the pending revision petition – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the concerned Financial Commissioner to dispose of the pending revision petition as early as possible and in any case within a period of one year.

(Para 1-4)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16, 121 -- Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Sanad Takseem – Revision/ Stay petition pending – Warrant possession – Writ jurisdiction – Sanad Takseem challenged before Financial Commissioner, the matter has not taken up even for preliminary hearing – Meanwhile warrants of possession have been issued – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to Financial Commissioner to take up the pending revision petition alongwith stay application – Till the decision of the stay application, dispossession of the petitioners shall remain stayed.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Mutation entry – Writ jurisdiction – Contention that Tehsildar has refused to enter a mutation, even though, civil proceedings have been finalized, thus, the concerned official needs to be hauled up -- Only prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the revenue authorities to perform their statutory duty as stipulated in Section 34 of the Act, 1887 -- If, an erroneous order has been passed, it can be challenged in accordance with law -- Writ petition disposed of.

(Para 1-4)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 – Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – One candidate for post – Fresh munadi – Legality of -- Total three candidates had applied but two had withdrawn their candidature and, accordingly, the matter was remanded for a fresh munadi so that more candidates could apply and a meritorious candidate could be selected -- Appellate and revisional authorities refused to interfere as there is no perversity -- Writ petition has no merit, dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Mutation of inheritance sanctioned -- Representation to police for taking action for getting mutation sanctioned illegally – Petition u/.s 482 Cr.P.C – Police conducted enquiry and it was found that at the time of sanction of mutation of inheritance, pedigree-table was prepared and the same was witnessed by Namberdar and legal heir of deceased was also present – After inquiry application was consigned to record room – Challenge to the mutation order is pending before Civil Court -- No further orders are required to be passed in the petition.

(Para 1-5)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Mutation on the basis of Will – Remedy of -- Mutation order passed by Commissioner –  Finding has been returned that the registered Will is not suspicious at all, exclusion of the petitioners therefrom was on the ground of pending criminal litigation with them – Submission that party who claims on the basis of Will must approach the civil Court rather than seeking a mutation on the basis thereof cannot be accepted.

(Para 1-4)

Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (31 of 1973), Section 4, 5 -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(4) -- Public premises – Shamilat deh -- Gair Mumkin Charagaha -- Zumla Mushtarka Malkan Va Digar Haqdaran land -- Eviction orders challenged in writ petition – Petitioners purchased land from the proprietors of the village, mutation entered, their names find mentioned in the jamabandi – Held, land in dispute recorded as 'Gair Mumkin Charagaha' -- According to Section 2(g)(4) PVCL Act, 1961 (as applicable to Punjab) shamilat deh includes lands used or reserved for the benefit of the village community -- Land of 'charagaha' is shamilat deh vests in the Gram Panchayat -- Argument that the Gram Panchayat had no authority to file an application under the Act cannot be accepted -- Impugned orders further show that there are entries of Zumla Mushtarka Malkan Va Digar Haqdaran as well -- Even such land vests in the Gram Panchayat – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Correction in revenue records – Writ jurisdiction -- Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the pending representation by passing a speaking order within eight weeks.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 8 – Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (8 of 1953), Section 2(a), (f), 3 -- Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953) -- Abolition of occupancy – Ownership rights – Eviction proceedings -- Jurisdiction of civil Court/ Revenue authorities -- A declaration as to whether the tenant has attained the status of owner in view of the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 read with 1952 Act, is required to be decided by the Civil Court and the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to grant such declaration – As per the scheme of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 read with the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, the eviction of a tenant cannot be ordered by the revenue authorities, whereas the declaration qua ownership on account of abolition of the occupancy can only be granted by the Civil Court -- After allowing the parties to litigate for a period of 7 years, when the suit was matured for decision, the Court chose to pass orders adjourning the case sine-die – Order set aside, Civil Court requested to proceed with the suit.

(Para 2-8)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 11 -- Shamilat deh – Title dispute – Gair marusi -- Jamabandi since the year 1935-36 indicates the land to be 'Shamlat Deh' -- All the records since the earlier time to the cut-off date of 26.01.1950 indicate that the Gram Panchayat has been entered as the owner in the column meant for the said purpose -- In the Jamabandi since the year 1976-77 till 2006-07, the Gram Panchayat is entered in the ownership column and on the other hand, petitioners have been shown as Gair Marusi, which shows that they are in illegal possession of the land – In the absence of any evidence to the contrary that the petitioners are in cultivating possession of the land prior to 26.01.1950, the petitioners cannot be declared the owners of the land in question.

(Para 7)

A. Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 200(1) – Panchayat matter -- Appointment of Administrator -- Argument that an Administrator can only be appointed, if, the Sarpanch has incurred a disqualification is mis-conceived -- Section 200 (1) of the Act does not lay down any such stipulation for appointment of Administrator.

(Para 5)

B. Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 200(1) – Panchayat matter – Non-passing of resolution – Dead-lock -- Appointment of Administrator -- Resolutions by a democratically elected body can be passed only on the basis of a majority and if, the body is unable to pass a resolution on account of a dead-lock, Section 200 (1) of the Act would get attracted as the Panchayat would have failed to perform a duty which it was bound to perform.

(Para 6)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 31, 34, 37 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 124 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 (iv)(c) -- Gift deed – Suit for declaration and permanent injunction -- Annulment of Gift deed – Advalorem court fee -- Gift is without consideration, and possession has not even been delivered and continues to be in the possession of the executant  -- Gift deed has been challenged on the ground of fraud -- No court fee is required to be paid.

(Para 9)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 31, 34, 37 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 124 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 (iv)(c) -- Gift deed – Suit for declaration and permanent injunction -- Annulment of Gift deed – Advalorem court fee -- Neither any consideration amount is involved nor relief of possession of the property is sought for, the petitioner/ plaintiff cannot be directed to pay ad-valorem court fee.

(Para 11)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Alternative remedy of Appeal/ Revision – Writ jurisdiction – Challenge to order passed by the Tehsildar, whereby attachment has been made on account of recovery proceedings for dues of Rs.83,39,159/- to the government -- Held, orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Collectors and other Revenue Officers are appealable and revisionable – Petitioner has also alternative efficacious remedy available to him – Writ petition is misconceived on the face of it and resultantly, the same is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.

(Para 5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 18 -- Revenue records -- Change in -- Consolidation proceedings – Land earmarked for  gairmumkin khal – Change to public path – Permissibility of -- Merely because it is not being used for the said purpose cannot be a ground for changing the revenue record and terming it as a public path as the same is used for the said purpose -- Area which has been earmarked during consolidation for a specific purpose cannot be changed without there being justifiable reasons for the same -- According to the report of the Tehsildar, the Government tubewell in existence is meant for the purpose of irrigating through the said khal so earmarked -- Since the revenue records all through have been mentioning it as a khal, the nature of the said entry cannot be changed at the behest of a private person.

(Para 4)

Haryana Chowkidar (Watchman) Rules, 2011 – Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 -- Appointment of village chowkidar – Appeal against -- Rules do not provide for remedy of an appeal, but order passed by the Collector who is a revenue officer and thus, appeal can be filed under the 13 of the Act, 1887.

(Para 2)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 34 -- Mutation on the basis of natural succession -- Will not considered by Patwari – Remedy of appeal -- Administrative action against Patwari – Writ jurisdiction -- Complaint to Deputy Commissioner for taking administrative action against Patwari -- Financial Commissioner directed the Deputy Commissioner to take necessary action, yet, no action has been taken – Held, if, the Deputy Commissioner is not complying with the orders, the petitioner should approach the Financial Commissioner – High Court does not exercise jurisdiction over administrative directions issued by the Financial Commissioner – So far as, the grievance regarding sanction of mutation is concerned, remedy of an appeal is available to the petitioner – Writ dismissed.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Age of candidate – Relevance of – Argued that age of the petitioner actually was 53 years at the relevant time but has been noted as 76 years by the Collector – Held, this would not amount to be perversity that vitiates the order -- Actual reason given for appointment of the private respondent is that he is an Ex-serviceman and deserves benefit for the same -- This factor has weighed with the appellate as well the revisional Courts and, thus, no interference is called for in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -- Writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.

(Para 3-5)

Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 11(2), 18(6) -- Allotment of surplus land – Non-payment of timely installments – Cancellation of allotment – Permissibility of – Petitioner was allotted 22 kanals and 1 marla on 30.11.1976 out of the surplus pool -- First installment was paid and possession was delivered on 07.07.1978 -- Remaining installments could not be deposited annually – Amount deposited in a lump sum alongwith interest on 27.05.2015 -- Soon thereafter application for entry of mutation was made – Held, Clause 11(2) stipulates that in case the installments are not deposited in time the same can be recovered alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. as arrears of land revenue -- No statutory provision has been pointed out which may provide for cancellation of allotment, if the installments are deposited belatedly – Writ petition allowed, Collector directed to ensure that the mutation is entered within four weeks -- Further action be also taken to ensure that the same finds mention in the subsequent jamabandies.

(Para 1, 5-7)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Allegation of cheating -- Choice of the Collector must be respected unless the same is shown to be perverse and illegal -- Allegation that the appellant had taken an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- for making arrangement to avail loan but when the same did not fructify, the money was also not being returned and at this stage a complaint was filed against the appellant before the Inspector General of Police -- Compromise was entered into and an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- was returned by the appellant -- This being based upon the documentary evidence has gone against the appellant while the revenue authorities have considered the claim of the appellant – Court did not find any justifiable ground for interfering with the well-reasoned order passed by the revenue authorities, which have been rightly approved by the learned Single Judge – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 9-11)

A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 13, 13-A (Haryana) -- Shamilat deh/ Gram Panchayat land – Title dispute – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- Jurisdiction to decide any dispute as to whether any right, title or interest in any land or immovable property vests in the Gram Panchayat or not, would exclusively lie with the Collector, to the exclusion of the Civil Court.

(Para 9)

B. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 13, 13-A (Haryana) -- Shamilat deh/ Gram Panchayat land – Title dispute – Suit for injunction -- Relief claimed in the civil suit involves the adjudication of rights of the parties over the suit property, hence, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court over the matter would, therefore, be barred u/s  13 of the Act.

(Para 10)

C. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 13-A(1)(2) (Haryana) -- Shamilat deh/ Gram Panchayat land -- Injunction – Power of Collector – Contention that there was no alternative remedy available to plaintiffs for restraining the defendants, is devoid of any merit -- Section 13-A(2) of the Act provides for deciding the suits under Section 13-A(1) in the same manner, as is provided for, in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) -- Hence, the Collector also does have all such incidental powers to decide the suit effectively and also has the powers to grant injunction.

(Para 11)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Power of – Nature of – Stage of -- Trial Court erred in observing that since the evidence had commenced, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was not maintainable -- Powers of the Court conferred under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC are mandatory in nature and can be exercised at any stage of the suit, but before the conclusion of the trial.

(Para 13)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Mutation entry – Pendency of application – Writ against -- Petitioner moved application for entering a mutation  in revenue record, which application was duly received by the respondents vide File No.824 dated 25.10.2018 but the prayer in this application is not being processed -- Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to decide the application within a period of eight weeks.

(Para 1, 6)