Haryana Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 23 -- Possession of new holding -- Petitioners continued in possession of the old khasra numbers and the effect to the consolidation proceedings has not been given, though revenue record may have been corrected -- Writ petition disposed to give effect to the consolidation proceedings qua the petitioners by way of handing over the physical possession of the land to which they are entitled.

(Para 3, 4)

Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (31 of 1973), Section 5 – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 20, 21 -- Eviction of unauthorised person – Right under consolidation – Ground of -- Final authority came to the conclusion that petitioner had encroached upon the land in dispute, auction whereof had taken place on 10.05.1993 -- Question of entitlement, as such, could not be raised and which is now contended on the strength of consolidation proceedings.

(Para 5)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11D – Shamilat deh – Ownership dispute – Framing of issues -- Summary procedure – Sustainability of -- Statutory authorities in a most summary manner declined the espoused declaratory decree – No issue struck on the contentious pleadings -- It was imperative for the authorities concerned, to formulate issues for the relevant evidence adducing onus becoming cast upon the litigants concerned -- Petition allowed, impugned order set aside, matter remanded back to Collector.

(Para 8-10)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887) , Section 44 – Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7 -- Jamabandi entries – Possession – Presumption -- Possession of plaintiffs-respondent Nos.4 to 7 over the property duly established on record through Jamabandi entries relating to the year 1971-72 till 2006-07 -- Though the land in question is recorded to be owned by the appellant-Gram Panchayat, however, it is in long settled physical possession of the plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 4 to 7, who are cultivating the same -- In terms of Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, presumption of truth is attached to the entries of possession made in the revenue record in the shape of Jamabandies -- No fault could be found with the reasoning, whereby the appellant-Gram Panchayat was restrained from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 4 to 7, except in due course of law.

(Para 9, 10)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – Less land holding – Effect of -- Petitioner owns more land than appointed candidate/ respondent No. 4 -- Respondent No. 4 has 10 Kanals 16 Marlas of land, which is sufficient to be taken into consideration for the purpose of security of revenue, collected by the Lambardar -- No scope for any interference.

(Para 1, 8.2, 9)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15, 20 – Punjab Land Administration Manual, Para 307 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Illiterate Candidate – Educated candidate – Preference of -- "Lambardari Rules" do not prescribe any minimum educational qualification for appointment of a Lambardar -- However, considering the duties to be performed by the Lambardar, as envisaged under Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules; it would be in the fitness of things to prefer an educated person.

(Para 8.6-8.8)

C. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar –Panch/ Sarpanch – Candidature of -- Being a Sarpanch or Member Panchayat reflects upon the popularity of a particular candidate in the village and is considered as a merit and not as a de-merit.

(Para 8.9)

D. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – Acquittal in criminal case -- Petitioner had criminal case, although he has been acquitted -- If a person with clean antecedents has been preferred, no fault can be found with the same.

(Para 8.10)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Appointed candidate/ respondent No. 4 is younger in age and more educated than the petitioner. Moreover, the name of respondent No. 4 was recommended by Tehsildar, Moga and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Moga.

-- With regard to the appointment of a Lambardar in the State of Punjab, age of a candidate is a relevant factor.

-- as far as recommendations by the lower Revenue Officer is concerned, although, the Collector is not bound by the recommendation made by the Revenue Authorities in favour of a candidate; however, due consideration is to be accorded to such recommendations.

-- As far as holding of land is concerned, same is taken into consideration only for the purpose of security towards government revenue collected by the Lambardar. Respondent No. 4 has about 8 kanal of land, which is sufficient to be taken into consideration for the purpose of security of revenue, collected by the Lambardar. Moreover, land revenue stood abolished in both the State of Punjab and Haryana, long back, thus owning land by the candidates for the post of Lambardar would not be of much significance any further.

Ld. Financial Commissioner has rightly appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar, there is no scope for any interference in the impugned order.

(Para 9-12)

Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Acquittal in criminal case – Appellant/ ex-serviceman acquitted in criminal case -- Private respondent, who was aged 32 years and passed BA-II was having 5 acres of agricultural land found more suitable -- It is settled principle of law that though a person might have been acquitted but he is supposed to have clean antecedents should be no taint – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 4-6)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Recommendation by Revenue authorities – Land ownership – Consideration of -- Not much difference in the age of petitioner (24 years) and respondent No.4 (30 years) and both are equally educated -- Respondent No.4 (appointed by Collector) owns land in his own name and his name was recommended by Tehsildar as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate – Although, the recommendation made by the lower Revenue Authorities may not be binding on the District Collector, however, due consideration is to be accorded to such recommendation as they are in a position to assess the suitability of a candidate and such recommendation would have some persuasive value – Order of Collector restored.

(Para 10-14)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Learned 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 -- Thus, the subjective satisfaction of the Collector, should have been respected.

(Para 12)

Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P. Act No. 20 of 1959), Section 257(f), (m) – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Dispute is to the effect as to whether the plaintiff is bhumiswami or the defendant 1 is bhumiswami of the land in question -- Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction or for restoration of possession is maintainable before Civil Court only – Provisions of section 257 (f) & (m) have no relevance to the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

(Para 10-13)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 -- Agreement to sell – Registration of – Requirement of – Suit for specific performance -- First Appellate Court held that for the purpose of filing the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell, the registration of the agreement to sell is not necessary – No ground to interfere is made out – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 3-9)

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 14(1) -- Surplus land – Permissible area – Non-utilisation of – Effect of – Land declared as surplus not utilized till date as per Section 14 (1) of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 -- Since the holding of the plaintiff, her father and other co-sharers is still joint and the permissible area & surplus area of the plaintiff has not been separated and distinctively identified till date, so the defendant-State cannot utilize the area declared as surplus in any manner whatsoever.

-- Land declared as surplus of the plaintiff had not been allotted to any eligible tenants and thus, the proceedings have not been completed till date nor the possession has been taken from the plaintiff till date.

-- Direction given to the defendants/ State to first complete proceedings under 1953 Act regarding the declaration of the land as surplus and it is only thereafter that land of the plaintiff is to be declared as surplus or permissible as per 1972 Act by giving her the benefit of the fact that she has become an independent unit being a married lady and cannot be included as a unit of family of her father/ landowner

-- Till all these proceedings are completed, decree of injunction passed, restraining the defendant/ respondent State from dispossessing the plaintiff from any part of the suit land held by her, as was transferred to her by her father, except in due course of law.

(Para 14-17)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Age of candidate -- Respondent No.4 (24 years old) had an edge over the petitioner (39 years old) inasmuch as that he is younger in age than the petitioner -- Age of a candidate is a relevant factor.

(Para 3, 3.1, 12)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 9 -- Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 51 – Civil suit for possession of agricultural land -- Ejectment of tenant -- Denying title of landlord – Effect of – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- If defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs in the written statement by taking a specific plea to the effect, that will be sufficient to hold that they had denounced the title of the plaintiff -- Civil Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit for possession.

(Para 10)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 9 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 51 – Tenancy of agricultural land – Adverse possession – Plea of -- Effect of – Finding beyond pleadings – Permissibility of -- At no point of time, defendants ever claimed to be tenants on the suit land -- Their consistent stand taken in the written statement is that they are in possession of the suit land and had perfected their title by way of adverse possession -- Their plea of adverse possession has not been found as correct -- The First Appellate Court on its own, made out a new case for the defendants by holding them to be tenants on the suit land -- The First Appellate Court could not travel beyond the pleadings of the parties -- Even the evidence, led beyond the pleadings of the parties, could not be appreciated in that direction -- Suit decreed.

(Para 11, 13)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7(x)(a) -- Suits Valuation Act, 1887 (7 of 1887), Section 8 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Suit for specific performance -- Rejection of plaint -- Advalorem court fees – Court fee on market value of property -- Trial Court directed to determine the market value of the suit property, as on the date of filing of the suit, by allowing the parties to place on record the documentary evidence in that respect and also by seeking information from the office of Collector/Revenue Authorities and thereafter direct the plaintiff to pay the ad-valorem court fee on the market price of the suit property -- On payment of said court fee, the Trial Court may proceed further with the suit.

(Para 11)

Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (8 of 1953), Section 2(f), 3 -- East Punjab Evacuee’s (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 4, 6 -- Lease by Muslims before independence of India – Rights of lessee – Occupancy tenants/ owner of land -- Plaintiffs claimed to have acquired rights of occupancy tenants in the said land and that after coming into force of the Act, they had become owner thereof – Plaintiffs sought a decree of declaration to that effect and also sought to restrain the defendants from interfering in their possession -- Stand of the defendants-State was that after migration of the Muslim landowners to Pakistan, the land had vested in the custodian and the lease hold rights of the plaintiffs came to an end and that they had become liable to be evicted -- Suit was decreed by the trial Court, first appeal of State dismissed – Regular Second appeal also dismissed.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), Section 27 --  Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Suit without authority – Permissibility of – Suspension of society – Appointment of Administrator – Fate of suit -- Learned Appellate Court found that President had not produced any authority by means of any resolution of the society authorizing him to file the suit or to defend the appeal and as such, the suit filed by him was not maintainable and apart from this, after suspension of the Managing Committee of the Society and appointment of the Administrator, President was left with no locus standi to continue with the suit or to defend the suit – No illegality, perversity or infirmity in the aforesaid findings of the First Appellate Court.

(Para 2.2, 11)

Court-fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Article 1, Schedule 1 -- Ad-valorem court fee – Transfer of property in favour of family members by registered instruments -- Suit for cancellation of document -- Trial court directed the plaintiff to pay ad-valorem court fee – Held, suit will be governed by Article-I, Schedule-I of the 1870 Act, which provides for payment of ad valorem court fee on the value of the subject matter in dispute -- There is no error in the impugned orders of the trial Court -- Revision dismissed.

(Para 3, 11, 12)

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 Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012 (Haryana Act No. 1 of 2012), Section 22, 39, 40 – Ousting the membership -- Non-production of documents by Society – Effect of -- Society cannot be permitted to take benefit of its own lapse in not producing its own record in relation to the claim made by the petitioners – Impugned orders passed disregards the evidence adduced by the petitioners, finding that said record was not produced by the Society -- Same, is not a valid ground to defeat the rights of any person or to disregard its evidence in entirety and to oust him from membership -- Matter remanded back to District Registrar of Societies.

(Para 31-37)

B. Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012 (Haryana Act No. 1 of 2012), Section 80 – Election of governing body under challenge -- Induction of 278 persons as members of the Society – Effect upon -- Unless any defect is pointed out at the outset as regards the eligibility of 278 members to be inducted as members or that they had not deposited the requisite charges or fulfill the eligibility conditions required under bye-laws, their induction cannot be said to be invalid merely on account of any subsequent defect as may be noticed in the election of the governing body.

(Para 36)

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)

East Punjab Evacuee’s (Administration of Property) Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 4, 6 -- East Punjab Displaced Persons Land Re-settlement Act, 1949 (Act 36 of 1949), Section 9 – Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (31 of 1950), Section 12 – Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 5(1)(a) -- Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (8 of 1953), Section 2(f), 3 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Lease by Muslims before independence of India – Occupancy rights – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Plaintiffs were already in possession of the suit property much prior to the 1947 Act -- It is not case of State/ defendants-appellants that they ever took possession of the property in dispute by following the procedure as laid down in Section 6 of the Act -- As possession was never taken from the plaintiffs by following the procedure as laid down in Section 6 of the 1947 Act, therefore, said possession cannot be held to have become unauthorised.

-- Nothing on record to suggest that lease in favour of the plaintiffs was ever terminated by the custodian, in whom the property had been vested by virtue of Section 4 of the 1947 Act, by following the procedure laid down in Section 9 (2) of the 1949 Act -- It is not the case of the defendants-appellants that the present case fails under any of the categories mentioned at (a), (b) and (c) of Section 12 of the 1950 Act and as such, it is held that Section 12 of the Central Act of 1950 or Section 9 of the 1949 East Punjab Act did not affect the rights of the plaintiffs/ respondents as tenants on the suit land.

-- Plaintiffs being in possession of the suit land at least since 1914-15, without paying any rent to the owners and paying only the land revenue and cesses and the entry in the revenue record being “Bashra Malkan Bewajah Derina Kast”, therefore, there can be no doubt in holding that plaintiffs had acquired the occupancy rights.

-- Plaintiffs having acquired the occupancy rights in the suit land vested with the ownership rights in view of the provisions of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1952.

-- It is only the Civil Court alone, which would have jurisdiction over the issue as to whether a person had acquired occupancy rights or not, and consequent to the acquiring of the occupancy rights, whether the ownership rights had vested in him or not.

(Para 13-27)

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 – Choice 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)

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Section 13(2)(4), 14, 26D, 26E -- Secured Debt – Red entry/ Lien by Excise and Income Tax department – Right of – SARFAESI proceedings initiated – Petitioner-Bank is not only a secured creditor but has created the first charge over the property in question as far as back in the year, 2013 – Excise and Taxation Department got entered a report dated 09.07.2015 and Income Tax Department got entered report dated 05.02.2018 in revenue record -- Held, once the petitioner is a secured creditor and has moreover created the first charge over the property, then obviously, it has the first right to realise its dues – Writ petition allowed, respondents directed to remove the red entry qua the property in question.

(Para 5, 6, 11-13)

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)