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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2022

Section 13 – Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – Criminal case – Acquittal from -- It cannot be said that merely because an accused who has been tried in a criminal case and thereafter acquitted is yet to carry the stigma of his being tried in a criminal case -- These are circumstances which would require consideration by the authorities after examining the facts and circumstances of the case -- The circumstances leading to acquittal and whether the same would yet entail a stigma are to be considered in each case on the basis of material on record.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2009

Section 13 – Appeal – Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Collector's order should not be interfered with unless it is shown to be illegal or perverse or lacking in jurisdiction.

(P&H HC) Decided on 31.01.2008

Section 13 – Appointment of Lambardar – Power of Appellate/Revisional authority -- Commissioner if found the order of Collector is perverse, then instead of assessing the merits of the candidates and ordered for appointment of the Lambardar, he should remit the matter to the Collector for a fresh decision, in accordance with law.

(P&H HC) Decided on 29.05.2007

Section 13 – Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 14 – Appointment of Lambardar – Appeal – Necessary party -- Petitioner himself had withdrawn his candidature for being appointed as Lambardar before the Collector -- Once the petitioner had foregone his claim for appointment, he was not a necessary party for being impleaded in appeal filed by the other contestant.

(P&H HC) Decided on 15.05.2006