Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 – Shamilat deh -- Notice to vacate by BDPO – Challenge to -- Writ jurisdiction – Dispute relates to the question of title and possession over the panchayat land involving disputed questions of fact – Court declines to enter into merits of the matter and relegates the petitioner to approach the Collector u/s 11 of the Act of 1961.

(Para 4, 5)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Collector has taken note of age, education, landholding etc. of the respective candidates and also taken into account the recommendation by lower revenue officers etc. -- Respondent No. 4 was a novice of about 20 years of age whereas the petitioner was found to be a mature and intelligent person, Collector found petitioner as a suitable candidate -- It is a well settled law that in the matter of appointment of Lambardar, the choice of Collector is not to be lightly interfered with even if two views are possible – Order of Financial Commissioner set aside and the order passed by learned Collector, appointing the petitioner as Lambardar maintained.

(Para 6, 7)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Recommendation of revenue officer -- 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 they are in a position to assess the suitability of a candidate and such recommendation would have some persuasive value.

(Para 6.5)

Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (29 of 1974), Section 2(15), 24 -- Restoration of watercourse -- Once the authority upon consideration of the matter has come to the conclusion that restoration of the watercourse on permanent basis was called for on account of the fact that the watercourse was running for more than 20 years and even the warabandi stood sanctioned thereon, no exception can be taken to the said course.

(Para 4)

Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (60 of 1958), Section 48(1) -- Revenue authority – Power of review – Waiver of parties – Permissibility of -- Cannot concur with the High Court’s reasoning that the Appellants “submitted themselves” to the authority’s review process or somehow acquiesced in the second decision -- Jurisdiction cannot be created by consent or waiver -- The law does not permit a statutory functionary to assume powers not conferred upon it, regardless of how the parties engage in subsequent litigation.

(Para 13)

A. Municipal records – Ownership -- Municipal record cannot be treated as ownership.

(Para 10)

B. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 65 – Suit for possession – Limitation -- Suit for possession of immovable property can be filed within 12 years from the date when the possession of the defendants became adverse to the plaintiff – No specific date and time of dispossession has been specified in the pleadings and no evidence regarding the same has been adduced – Plaintiff during his cross-examination stated that defendants are in possession of the suit property for the last 30-35 years – Suit held to be filed beyond the period of limitation.

(Para 11)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 54 – Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 -- Agreement to sell – Whether, it is transfer of title? -- Agreement for sale in respect of an immovable property does not transfer title in favour of the purchaser under the agreement -- An agreement for sale does not create any interest in the property -- The only mode by which an immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred) can be sold is by a sale deed duly registered in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

(Para 6)

A. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47A(1) -- Registration of document -- Reference to Collector – Nature of -- Registering Officer, after registration of the document, can refer the same for adjudication before the Collector, if he has reason to believe that there was deliberate undervaluation of the property -- Such a reference is not a mechanical act, but the Registering Officer should have a basis for coming to prima facie finding of undervaluation of the property -- Duty is enjoined upon the Registering Officer to ensure that Section 47-A(1) does not work as an engine of oppression nor as a matter of routine, mechanically, without application of mind as to the existence of any material or reason to believe the fraudulent intention to evade payment of proper Stamp Duty.

-- The expression ‘reason to believe’ is not synonymous with subjective satisfaction of the officer. The belief must be held in good faith, it cannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the Court to examine the question whether the reasons for the belief must have a rational connection or a relevant bearing to the formation of the belief and are not irrelevant or extraneous to the purpose of the section. The word ‘reason to believe’ means some material on the basis of which the department can re-open the proceedings. However, satisfaction is necessary in terms of material available on record, which should be based on objective satisfaction arrived at reasonably.

(Para 21)

B. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47A(1) -- Registration of document – Reference to Collector – Undervaluation property – Material to support – Roving enquiry – Permissibility of -- It is not permissible for the Registering Officer to undertake a roving enquiry for the purpose of ascertaining the correct market value of the property -- If the Registering Officer is bona fide of the view that the sale consideration shown in the sale deed is not correct and the sale is undervalued, then it is obligatory on the part of the Registering Authority as well as the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) to assign some reason for arriving at such a conclusion -- In such circumstances, if the document in question is straightway referred to the Collector without recording any prima facie reason, the same would vitiate the entire enquiry and the ultimate decision.

(Para 27)

C. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47A(1) -- Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, Rule 4, 6, 7 -- As per Rule 6 of the Rules 1968, after passing the provisional order, it is obligatory on the part of the Collector to communicate the market value of the property and the duty payable by the parties concerned in Form II – After the issue of Form II, the parties concerned have to be given an opportunity to submit their representation in respect of determining the market value of the subject property -- Thereafter, as contemplated in Rule 7 of the Rules 1968, the Collector, after considering the representation if received in writing and the submissions that might have been urged at the time of hearing or even in the absence of any representation from the parties concerned, proceed to pass the final order -- Collector (Stamps) directly issued the final order in violation of the Rules 4 and 6 – High Court set aside orders passed by Chief Revenue Controlling Officer-cum-the-Inspector General of Registration – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 2, 30-32)

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23 – Senior citizen case -- Transfer of possession of property  -- Setting aside of gift deed -- Power of Tribunal -- The Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, aimed at securing the rights of senior citizens, in view of the challenges faced by them -- It is in this backdrop that the Act must be interpreted and a construction that advances the remedies of the Act must be adopted -- It cannot be said that the Tribunals constituted under the Act, while exercising jurisdiction u/s 23, cannot order possession to be transferred.

(Para 13-25)

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Coparcener property -- By definition, an ancestral property is a coparcenary property, where "coparceners" are legal heirs with an inherent interest in the property from birth -- Such properties remain undivided within joint families, with legal heirs enjoying their shares.

(Para 16)

B. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Coparcener property -- Family settlement – Effect of -- Suit property could not have been held to be an ancestral property, as the same was received by the erstwhile owner by way of a family settlement, wherein, the two brothers divided two equally measuring plots between themselves -- Hence, the property could not have been said to be delved on the father by virtue of him being a coparcener in that property.

(Para 19)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Regular Second Appeal – Scope of -- Section 100 of the CPC confers a limited jurisdiction on the High Court to deal only with any legal error apparent on the face of the record -- Since there arises no substantial question of law to be adjudicated, the appeal dismissed.

(Para 20, 21)

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17(2)(vi) – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 3, Article 22 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23 Rule 3 -- Compromise decree for immovable property – Pre-existing right -- Stamp duty -- Registration – Requirements of -- If a compromise decree involves immovable property other than the property for which a decree is prayed for, such a property would not be exempted and would require registration -- To avail the exemption from compulsory registration, the compromise decree arrived must be only in respect of the property that is the subject-matter of the suit -- Compromise arrived at before the Lok Adalat and the award passed by the Lok Adalat thereto assume the character of a decree passed under Order XXIII Rule 3 and would also come within the ambit and purview of sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Act, 1908 -- In order to fall under the exception of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act, 1908, the following conditions must be satisfied:

(i)There must be a compromise decree as per the terms of the compromise without any collusion;

(ii)The compromise decree must pertain to the subject property in the suit; and

(iii)There must be a  pre-existing right over the subject property, and the compromise decree should not create a right afresh.

(Para 7-10, 13)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 53A – Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 – Transfer of property by unregistered document -- Part performance of contract – Object of Section 53A of T.P.A. – Interpretation of -- Section 53-A was inserted principally for the protection of ignorant transferees who take possession or spend money in improvements relying on documents which are ineffective as transfers or on contracts which cannot be proved for want of registration -- The effect of this section, is to relax the strict provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act in favour of transferees in order to allow the defence of part performance to be established -- Section 53-A is an exception to the provisions which require a contract to be in writing and registered and which bar proof of such contract by any other evidence -- Consequently, the exception must be strictly construed.

(Para 13, 14)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- Suit for declaration – Challenge to sae deed -- Advalorem court fee – Petitioner/ plaintiff was one of the executants of the sale deed sought to be challenged -- Although the petitioner has couched the suit as being suit for declaration but in fact the petitioner is seeking cancellation of the sale deed  -- It would be incumbent upon the petitioner to pay the ad valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed.

(Para 3, 4)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 -- Joint land – Sale of specific khasra Number – Legality of -- Even if specific Khasra numbers are sold out of joint land, the same still is sale of share in the joint holding -- It is not disputed by the plaintiffs that subject matter of sale deed challenged in the suit, is less than the entitlement of K.S. – Held, suit seeking declaration to the effect that sale deed executed by K.S. in favour of the defendants itself was not maintainable once the share sold by him was less than the share of K.S.

(Para 15, 16)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6, 8 – Co-parcenary property – Sole-coparcener – Alienation of property – Right of -- Sole surviving co-parcener is entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property as his separate property as long as he remains a sole surviving coparcener and he may sell or mortgage the coparcenary property even though there is no legal necessity or family benefit or may even make a gift of the coparcenary property -- When the sons and grandchildren are born to the family, then automatically by birth they acquire the right over the ancestral and joint family property and cannot dispose of the same.

(Para 22, 23)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 21, 22 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Fresh proclamation – Challenge to -- Petitioner is about 80 years of age, proceedings for filling up the vacant post of Lambardar of Village were initiated more than 10 years ago and the same have not been finalized till date -- Only two applicants for the post -- Authorities have concurrently held that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, if a fresh munadi is ordered to be conducted as the same shall widen the choice of better selection for the post of Lambardar – Neither the copy of the proclamation notice placed on record nor the name of the place where the said notice was pasted forthcoming -- It cannot be concluded that the proclamation was validly conducted – Writ dismissed.

(Para 4, 5)

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17(2)(xii) – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), First Schedule, Article 18, 23 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 94 -- Auction sale – Sale certificate -- Stamp duty – Requirement of -- Sale certificate issued to the purchaser in pursuance of the confirmation of an auction sale is merely evidence of such title and does not require registration u/s 17(1) of the Registration Act -- Mere filing u/s 89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded by the authorised officer to the registering authority – However, Articles 18 and 23 respectively of the first schedule to the Stamp Act respectively makes it clear that when the auction purchaser presents the original sale certificate for registration, it would attract stamp duty in accordance with the said Articles -- As long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable -- It is only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise.

(Para 7, 13-20)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 6A, 7(iv-A) – Advalorem court fee -- Suit claiming a decree for declaration to the effect that the gift deed be declared as null, void, forged and fabricated having no effect on the rights of the plaintiff and consequential information in this regard be sent to the Sub-Registrar's office -- It is not a simplicitor suit for declaration of rights and it clearly falls under section 7(iv-A) of the Act.

(Para 3, 11)

Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (6 of 1954), Section 14, 133 – Partition of land – Mutation entry thereof – Appeal by stranger – Maintainability of -- Mutation was entered and attested to give effect to the family partition carried out by the petitioners, i.e. co-owners of the joint land – Complete stranger to the joint land co-owned by the petitioners cannot have any grievance against the partition carried out between the co-owners (the petitioners) with respect to the joint land – Revenue Authorities had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal preferred by him against Mutation.

(Para 5-5(v))

Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 6, 7, 83 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 -- Waqf property – Jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunal -- Gair Mumkin Khangah and Takia -- Tribunal decided the issue of jurisdiction and held that the question of title would be decided by the Collector under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, however decided the other issued on merits – Tribunal would not be excluded from adjudicating the matter -- Tribunal having held that it did not have the jurisdiction to try and decide the suit, the findings on merits on other issues could not have been rendered by it -- Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law.

(Para 1, 3, 6-8)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 (d) -- Appointment of Lambardar – Interaction quality of candidate – Consideration of -- Appellant was quizzed by the Collector, District Collector found that appellant was incapable of telling anything about himself, it was found that he was not a suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar – Respondent no. 4 was appointed as he appeared to be more mature and healthy person -- The interaction part, which is most important aspect to find out the capability as such, was totally lost sight of by the Financial Commissioner while interfering in the well-considered order of the Collector – Ld. Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.4 and set-aside the order passed by the Financial Commissioner – No merit in appeal, dismissed.

(Para 1, 4-6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Mutation entry – Inaction of authority – Direction sought for respondent No.2 to take immediate decision on the mutation application moved by petitioner -- NOCs of other legal heirs have already been submitted by the petitioner in the year 2013 – Direction issued to respondent No.2 to take a decision on the mutation application by a reasoned and speaking order not later than three months.

(Para 3-6)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Land-holding – Requirement of -- Ld. Collector recorded in his order that the petitioner has land in another village, which is enough for the land revenue security purpose – Ld. 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 – Ld. Financial Commissioner has erred in upsetting the choice of the Collector – As 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 – Petitioner’s appointment was set aside only on the ground that he did not own any land in the revenue estate – Financial Commissioner order set aside.

(Para 7-11)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Younger in age – Non-consideration of other factors – Effect of -- Petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by Collector, only on the ground that she is younger than the other candidates; whereas, the other factors, as envisaged under Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, have not been taken into consideration – Commissioner remanded back the case, which order was upheld by the Financial Commissioner --  Case requires a fresh look at the level of District Collector is correct and does not call for any interference.

(Para 8.1-9)

Court-fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1970), Section 7 – Sale deed – Challenge to -- Ad-valorem court fee -- Neither the plaintiff is executant of the sale deed nor has sought possession -- Being a non-executant, plaintiff can avoid the sale deed and thus, is not required to affix ad valorum Court fee on the value of the property.

(Para 10)

Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (4 of 1994), Section 131(4), 146 – Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997, Rule 143, 148 -- Removal of Pradhan of Panchayat – Bye-election – Statutory remedies -- Revision petition pending adjudication before the Secretary (Panchayati Raj) -- In case, the post of Pradhan Gram Panchayat is allowed to be filled-up by holding Bye-election, right to hold the post of Pradhan, in case she eventually succeeds in her revision petition, would be adversely affected -- Decision taken by the State Election Commission to withdraw the Election Notice in respect of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat does not call for any interference.

(Para 4)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15(c) – Appointment of Lambardar -- Service to nation – Availability in village -- Respondent No.4/ appointed candidate earlier had worked for 16 years as Lambardar and was a retired officer from CRPF and sufficiently educated upto 10th standard and had served the nation and he had taken part in various wars/operations and also a holder of prestigious President Medal -- Service rendered to the State is an important aspect -- Appellant is working in the Forest Department and, therefore, cannot give as much time to the villagers – Appointment of respondent no. 4, upheld.

(Para 4, 5)

A. Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 4(3)(5)(6) – Landlord -- Tenant -- Gair marusi tenant -- Merely because appellant is recorded as ‘Gair Maurusi’ in the revenue record, does not mean that he is a tenant over the suit property – There can be no tenancy unless there is a condition of payment of rent, though the rent may be payable in cash, kind or service etc. -- Held, it is inconceivable that there can be any tenancy without the condition of payment of rent, unless there is a contract to the contrary, absolving the tenant the liability to pay rent.

(Para 14, 15)

B. Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 4(3)(5)(6) – Gair marusi tenant – Trespasser -- Adverse possession -- A party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take contrary stands to suit his convenience -- When in the earlier two litigations, it was ordered by the courts that appellant could be dispossessed in due course of law, he changed the stand in next litigations taking contrary plea that he had become owner of suit property by adverse possession -- In none of the earlier litigations decided earlier, he has been held to be tenant in the suit land, though his plea of possession has been upheld with further direction that he cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law – No evidence that tenancy was ever created and as such, his possession over the suit land is nothing less than that of a stranger / trespasser.

(Para 19)

C. Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 4(3)(5)(6) – Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 9 --  Tenant of land – Eviction -- Jurisdiction of civil court --  When the person is inducted as a tenant on payment of rent and the rent is not paid --  Civil Court will not have jurisdiction and the landlord will have to seek his remedy before the Revenue Authorities to seek ejectment of such tenant or a tenant holding over, under the provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 to be read with the provisions Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act.

(Para 22)

D. Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 4(3)(5)(6) – Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 9 --  Gair marusi tenant – Suit for possession – Jurisdiction of civil court --  When the possession of person concerned on the suit land is without payment of rent, such as person is no more than a stranger or trespasser over the suit property -- In such a situation, his possession, howsoever long it may be, cannot be considered in the capacity of tenant in view of the definition of ‘landlord’, ‘tenant’ and ‘rent’ -- In this eventuality, it is only the Civil Court, which will have the jurisdiction to pass the decree of possession in favour of the landlord – Suit for possession decreed.

(Para 22, 23)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 116, 121 -- Mode of partition – Sanad takseem/ Instrument of partition -- Challenge to – Ground of -- Since the sanctioned mode of partition was never challenged by the petitioners and had attained finality, the petitioners can question the final partition only on the ground that the same is not in consonance with mode of partition.

(Para 7.2)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 121 -- Partition of land – Value and location of land -- It is well-settled that besides the possession of the co-sharers over the portions in the joint land holding, the value and location as well as the nature of such land have also to be taken into consideration at the time of affecting the partition so that all the co-sharers get the portions of the land without any prejudice to their entitlement as per their respective shares in the total land under partition.

(Para 8)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 121 -- Partition of land – Value and location of land -- Entire portion of the subject land abutting the road allocated to the appellants – Respondent No.5 has not been given even an inch of land out of the same which, by no stretch of imagination, can be termed to be justified and equitable at all.

(Para 8)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 158(2) -- Jurisdiction of civil court -- Suit for mandatory Injunction to nullify the breaking up of original Khewat into three Khewat and restore the original Khewat – Prayer essentially attracts the provisions of Section 158(2)(vi) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 – Jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred -- It is cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in a manner prescribed and not in any other way -- Learned first appellate Court was justified in nonsuiting the plaintiff on the issue of maintainability of the suit, being barred under the provisions of the Act.

(Para 12)

Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 13A – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 -- Finalisation of eviction proceedings – Title dispute – Constructive resjudicata -- Issue of constructive res judicata stands in the way of the petitioners -- It was always open to them to have specifically filed an application u/s 13-A of the Act, and having failed to do so, could not, now as such start a new round of litigation for deciding their unauthorized claim, as such is not permissible.

(Para 7)

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22A(B), 22C – Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 6 -- Lease of the Gram Panchayat land – Public Utility Service – Maintainability of proceedings before Permanent Lok Adalat -- Lease of the Gram Panchayat land to any bidder is not a part of the Public Utility Services defined under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 -- Proceedings at the first instance could not have been maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat.

(Para 5, 6)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15(d) – Appointment of Lambardar – Encroachment upon common land – Ld. Collector should have given finding whether possession was unauthorised or not -- Clean image of the candidate and the character of the candidate has to be seen and kept in mind by the Collector -- In such circumstances, the Financial Commissioner had remanded the matter for fresh consideration for which no fault can be found – Order of Financial Commissioner, upheld.

(Para 8, 9)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 118, 121 -- Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (1 of 1913), Section 3(1) (2) and (3), 8, 15, 16 -- Pre-emption decree – Partition of land – Naksha bey – Naksha jeem -- Severance of co-sharer status -- Prior to the passing of the judgment and decree by the trial Court not only the 'naksha bey' had been sanctioned but even the 'naksha jeem' had been prepared and thus, on the date of the judgment and decree, there was severance of the relationship of co-sharers between the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 and thus, the plaintiffs had no right of pre-emption on the date of the passing of the judgment by the trial Court.

(Para 18)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 15, 16 -- Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Less educated candidate – Less land holding – Effect of – Choice of Collector :

-- Respondent no. 4 recommended by Assistant Collector Ist Grade and Assistant Collector IInd Grade. 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 they are in a position to assess the suitability of a candidate and such recommendation would have some persuasive value.

-- Respondent No. 4 has about 7 acres 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.

-- Respondent no. 4 acquitted in criminal case under Section 170 and 420 IPC.

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 -- Merely because the petitioner is more educated or holds slightly more land than respondent No. 4, it cannot be said that the choice made by learned Collector, keeping in view all the relevant considerations, is illegal or perverse – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 7-9)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Less land holding – 10^th pass in comparison to BA -- Choice of Collector – Interference in – Petitioner is 10^th Pass having 6 acres of land  -- Respondent no. 4 is BA Pass having 15 acres of land -- Petitioner is younger in age than respondent No. 4 and is sufficiently educated and has sufficient landholding -- Further, the name of the petitioner was recommended by the lower revenue officers and the learned Collector found the petitioner as the most suitable candidate for appointment to the post of Lambardar -- Financial Commissioner/ FC remanded the case by noticing the claim of respondent No. 4 that he is more educated and he holds more land than the petitioner whereas the other relevant aspects have not been taken into consideration -- Choice of Collector is not to be lightly interfered with, even if two views are possible – Order of FC set aside, order passed by ld. Collector, appointing the petitioner as Lambardar upheld.

(Para 7.1, 7.3, 9)

Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (29 of 1974), Section 20(3), 55(4)(6) – Constitution of India, Section 226, 227 -- Nakka from the watercourse – Finality of order – Once the matter regarding provisioning of Nakka to the land of respondent No. 3 and/or father of respondent No. 3 was considered and decided by the Superintending Canal Officer and the said order having attained finality, it would be just and expedient not to permit the same issue being agitated again -- Superintending Canal Officer by directly entertaining application of respondent No. 3 and by passing the impugned order has unsettled the settled position, which has not only prevented the finality of decision that has been reached at, but has conveyed a wrong message that a litigant may go on filing applications for a relief claimed and even if the same is denied, it could be granted at some subsequent stage -- This is clearly against public policy and administration of justice -- Civil writ petition allowed and the impugned orders set aside.

(Para 11)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Petitioner is younger in age; is more educated than respondent No.4 and her name was recommended by the SDM – Ld Collector’s appointed petitioner as Lambardar and order was further upheld by the learned Divisional Commissioner, however the Financial Commissioner set aside both orders and appointed respondent no.4 as Lambardar.

-- In the State of Punjab, age of a candidate is a relevant factor.

-- Respondent No. 4 owns more land however the petitioner has about 5 Kanals of land, which is sufficient to be taken into consideration for the purpose of security of revenue, collected by the Lambardar.

-- Petitioner is a well-educated lady having done M.A. B.Ed. and also holds an I.T. diploma.

Order passed by learned Financial Commissioner is unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside.

(Para 7-10)

Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (3 of 1911), Section 22 – Punjab Municipal (Executive Officer) Rules, 1976, Rule 3 -- Removal of President of Municipal Council – Appointments of contractual employees -- Appointment letters distributed by President in a programme which was yet to be fixed -- Employees are still working in the Municipal Council, no allegation by the official respondents that the same was done dishonestly or for any extraneous consideration or by using the corrupt practices – It amount to misuse of power, but not an abuse of power – Not warrant his removal from the office – Impugned order quashed.

(Para 18-20)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 33, 35 -- Suit for specific performance – Insufficient stamp on agreement – Penalty of 10 times – Trial court imposed 10 times penalty -- Imposition of penalty to the extent of ten times, is not mandatory and discretion lies with the authority -- Parties entered into agreement to sell, without having knowledge of the amendment carried out by the State of Punjab -- Petitioner-plaintiff shall be liable to pay the deficient stamp duty, along with equivalent amount of penalty, within a period of 30 days. Amit Kumar’s case 2022(3) Law Herald 2472 relied – Revision allowed.

(Para 1, 13-17)

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)