February 2012 (1) L.a.reporter

8/2/2019 February 2012 (1) L.a.reporter

1/31

Local Acts Reporter 2011(3) L.A.R. ............ Latest Laws

Feburary Part

2012(1)L.A.R.

SUBJECT INDEXAcquisition of land

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Challenge to -- Delay and laches Award not passedwithin statutory period -- Writ petition was filed immediately after pronouncement of the

award Could not have been non-suited by invoking the rule of laches. R. IndiraSaratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 136 (SC).

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Market Value Compensation payable to the claimantshas to be computed in terms of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act -- Market value of the land hasto be determined at the date of the publication of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act, aftertaking into consideration what is stated under Sections 23(1), 23(1A), 23(2) and excludingthe considerations stated under Section 24 of the Act -- It is not possible to fix thecompensation with exactitude or arithmetic accuracy -- Court may have to take recourse tosome guesswork while determining the fair market value of the land and the consequentialamount of compensation. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1)L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Stay of proceedings Statutory period for Award -- If anyaction or proceeding required to be taken after the issue of declaration u/s 6 is stayed by aCourt, the entire period of stay will get excluded in calculating the period of two years withinwhich an award is required to be made by the Collector -- Once the stay order passed by aCourt is vacated or ceases to operate, the clog put on the running of the period specified inthe main section is removed. R. Indira Saratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu & others,2012(1) L.A.R. 136 (SC).

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Stay of proceedings Statutory period for Award -- Timetaken in supply of copy of the judgment cannot extend the period of two years specified inSection 11A. R. Indira Saratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 136(SC).

Market Value -- Plotting has been done only on part of the acquired land and the land issurrounded by colonies like ITBP etc. but, there is no evidence to show that the acquiredland itself is developed and is having all the required facilities and amenities -- It may be acase where less deduction may be applied but certainly it is not a case of no deduction' --Deduction of 10% from the market value on account of development charges and otherpossible expenditures would be justifiable and called for in the facts and circumstances of thepresent case. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212(SC).

Market Value Principle of guesstimation -- Principle of guesstimation will have noapplication to the case of no evidence'-- This principle is only intended to bridge the gap
http://lawinformationindia.blogspot.in/2012/02/local-acts-reporter-20113-lar-latest_6631.htmlhttp://lawinformationindia.blogspot.in/2012/02/local-acts-reporter-20113-lar-latest_6631.html


2/31

between the calculated compensation and the actual compensation Certain principlescontrolling the application of guesstimate are : (a) Wherever the evidence produced by theparties is not sufficient to determine the compensation with exactitude, this principle can be

resorted to -- (b) Discretion of the court in applying guesswork to the facts of a given case isnot unfettered but has to be reasonable and should have a connection to the data on recordproduced by the parties by way of evidence. Further, this entire exercise has to be within thelimitations specified under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act and cannot be made in detrimentthereto. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Market Value -- Sale instance Law of deduction Not possible to state precisely theexact deduction which could be made Deduction is to be applied on account of carrying outdevelopment activities like providing roads or civic amenities such as electricity, water etc.when the land has been acquired for construction of residential, commercial or institutionalprojects -- It shall also be applied where the sale instances (exemplars) relate to smallerpieces of land and in comparison the acquisition relates to a large tract of land -- Deductioncan also be applied on account of wastage of land -- It is neither possible nor appropriate tostricto sensu define a class of cases where the Court would not apply any deduction -- Thecases where the acquired land itself is fully developed and has all essential amenities, beforeacquisition, for the purpose for which it is acquired requiring no additional expenditure for itsdevelopment, falls under the purview of cases of no deduction'. Trishala Jain & Anr. v.State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Market Value -- Sale instance -- Sale deeds executed in favour of the family members orpersons known to the claimants just about two months prior to the issuance of the notificationu/s 4(1) are liable to be ignored. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal &Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Market Value -- Sale instance -- Vendor or vendee of sale deed had not been examinedto prove them in Court -- Sale instances cannot be rejected on that ground.Cement

Corporation of Indias case (2004)8 SCC 270 relied.Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State ofUttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Market Value -- Sale instance of smaller size of land Sale instances even of smallerplots could be considered for determining the market value of a larger chunk of land withsome deduction unless, there was comparability in potential, utilisation, amenities andinfrastructure with hardly any distinction. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal &Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Market Value Small sale instance -- Deduction from -- Land acquired had the potentialof being developed for residential or institutional purposes, the same was acquired forconstruction of a Government Polytechnic Institute Sale instance is situated at a distanceof 1-1/2 furlong from the acquired land cannot be said to be incomparable sale instance, i.e.

it has to be taken as a comparable sale instance Value of sale of small pieces of land canbe taken into consideration for determining even the value of a large tract of land 10%deduction is made from the estimated market value of acquired land. Trishala Jain & Anr. v.State of Uttaranchal & Anr.,2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Actual notice

When notice is directly served upon a party in a formal manner or when it is receivedpersonally by him, there is actual notice. The Special Deputy Collector, Land AcquisitionC.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC).


3/31

Adverse inference

Non-reply of Notice In view of the pending litigation, non issue of the replies to the

notices cannot be treated as an admission of the averments in the notices.DnyaneshwarRanganath Bhandare & Another v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Another, 2012(1)L.A.R. 120 (SC).

Age

Appointment of Lambardar Experience with Tau -- Contention that private respondenthas made a false statement with regard to his experience and working with his Tau Contention that at the time of death of previous Lambardar, private respondent was about 12years of age and this will affect merit qua the appointment of respondent No.5 -- Contentionis rejected. Jai Bhagwan v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R.204 (P&H).

Allotment of landEvacuee property As per the Jamabandi, the land in question has been recorded

under the ownership of the Central Government, which indicates that it is not the packagedeal property -- Appellant was unable to show any document, indicating that the property inquestion was a package deal property Appellant is not entitled for allotment of the sameunder the Punjab Package Act. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(1)L.A.R. 207 (P&H DB).

Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 -- Delay and laches -- Husbandof the petitioner had made supreme sacrifice of his life for the country during the Indo-PakWar of 1965 -- Case of the petitioner for allotment of land to her was duly recommended bythe concerned Commanding Officer Petitioner is directed to move an application and thesame shall be sympathetically considered by the competent authority, without adhering to thetechnical objection of non-filing of the application and by passing a well-reasoned speakingorder, within a period of two months thereafter -- Whether the Government is duty bound toconsider the case of petitioner on merits or not? Answer must obviously be in theaffirmative. Jagir Kaur v. The State of Punjab, 2012(1) L.A.R. 116 (P&H).

Appointment of Lambardar

Age Experience with Tau -- Contention that private respondent has made a falsestatement with regard to his experience and working with his Tau Held, in the villages it is acommon practice that an aged man is accompanied by younger male member in the family --If such statement is made, such cannot be treated as misleading -- Contention that at thetime of death of previous Lambardar, private respondent was about 12 years of age and this

will affect merit qua the appointment of respondent No.5 -- Contention is rejected.JaiBhagwan v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 204 (P&H).

Choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly, it can only be set aside if there is anyperversity or illegality. Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 132(P&H).

Choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly unless there is perversity in the orderpassed by the Collector -- Collector has appreciated the comparative merit of the candidatesand has come to a conclusion that private respondent is a more suitable and meritoriouscandidate for appointment as Lambardar -- Commissioner did not find any perversity in theorder of the Collector, inspite of that the appointment was set aside -- Financial


4/31

Commissioner restored the order of Collector In the judicial review, the power of High Courtis limited to the extent of looking into the perversity, illegality or impropriety in the orderpassed by the competent authority -- Held, there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the

order of the Financial Commissioner Writ dismissed.Surender Kumar v. State of Haryanaand others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 202 (P&H).

Comparative merits Choice of Collector -- Petitioner has misappropriated the amountof the Cooperative Society of the village and his services were terminated -- Besides thisprivate respondent is an Ex-serviceman and is a middle pass and he had been a member ofthe Market Committee and he also remained Sarpanch of the village -- He also remainedSarbrah Lambardar of the village for five years and is well conversant with the works of thelambardari Collector found private respondent to be a better candidate for appointment tothe post of Lambardar -- It is settled law that the choice of the Collector cannot be set asidelightly. Harbhagwan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab andanother, 2012(1) L.A.R. 198 (P&H).

Comparative merits -- Petitioner is 36 years of age, graduate and diploma holder incomputer education, he owns 6 kanal and 11 marlas of land in the village and 32 kanals inanother village -- Petitioner further got Fixed Deposits to the tune of Rs. 57 lac and 15 familyplanning cases Private respondent to the contrary, is 55 years of age, 9th class pass andowns 10 acres of land in the village Private respondent got Fixed Deposits worth Rs.45,74,000/- and Fixed Deposit to the tune of Rs. 8 lac in his own name; one LIC policy and 9cases of family planning, he himself has been a Sarpanch for one term, his Mother has beenPanch for one term -- Petitioner has been a member of the Block Samiti for 5 years andfather of the petitioner also remained Sarpanch of the village Criminal complaint againstrespondent ended in a compromise u/s 323, 324, 326, 341 and 506 IPC -- Acquittal wasrecorded by the Judicial Magistrate Held, after considering overall merits/ disabilities,respondent has substantially more social standing as compared to the petitioner Private

respondents appointment as Lambardar upheld. Bhim Singh v. Financial Commissioner,Haryana & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 162 (P&H).

Comparative merits -- Private Respondent is having more land, son of deceasedLambardar, is also an ex-serviceman, served in the Army for five years and his character hasbeen found to be exemplary and also remained as Sarbrah Nambardar of the village, who iswell conversant with the works of the Lambardar, whereas the reputation of petitioner is notclear as a criminal case has been registered against him -- Petitioner is having less land --Only young age of the petitioner cannot be a ground to appoint him as Lambardar -- Merefact that a number of persons supported the candidature of the petitioner does not give anyright to the petitioner to be appointed as Lambardar Collector appointed petitioner asLambardar Order upheld. Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R.195 (P&H).

Disqualification -- Father was defaulter Held, for the fault of father, he cannot bedeprived of his right and his merit cannot be ignored on this ground alone. Jai Bhagwan v.Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 204 (P&H).

Disqualification For the fault of the family members, a person claiming his right in hisindividual capacity cannot be deprived of those rights. Jai Bhagwan v. FinancialCommissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 204 (P&H).

Educational qualification -- No qualification prescribed under the rules -- There is notmuch difference in 10+2 or Matric. Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1)L.A.R. 132 (P&H).


5/31

F.I.R. Effect of Contention that private respondent is not eligible for appointment asLambardar since a criminal case was registered against him u/s 323, 324 and 34 of the IPC

Held, registration of FIR is to set the law in motion -- Those offences are compoundable

and the case has been compromised and challan has not been presented, so the contentionis rejected. Harbhagwan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab andanother, 2012(1) L.A.R. 198 (P&H).

Qualification -- Personal influence, character, services rendered to the State by himselfor by the family, service rendered to the community and development programmes arerelevant considerations for appointment of a Lambardar. Bhim Singh v. FinancialCommissioner, Haryana & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 162 (P&H).

Recommendation of Revenue Authorities Remand by Commissioner Effect of --Earlier recommendations made by the A.C. IInd Grade and Ist Grade are insignificant, sincethe Divisional Commissioner, had set aside the order of the Collector appointing petitioner asLambardar -- Only the subsequent order after the remand is to be taken into

consideration. Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 195 (P&H).

Challenge to Acquisition of land

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Delay and laches Award not passed within statutoryperiod -- Writ petition was filed immediately after pronouncement of the award Could nothave been non-suited by invoking the rule of laches. R. Indira Saratchandra v. State ofTamil Nadu & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 136 (SC).

Choice of Collector

Appointment of Lambardar -- Choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly, it canonly be set aside if there is any perversity or illegality. Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjaband others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 132 (P&H).

Appointment of Lambardar -- Choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly unlessthere is perversity in the order passed by the Collector -- Collector has appreciated thecomparative merit of the candidates and has come to a conclusion that private respondent isa more suitable and meritorious candidate for appointment as Lambardar -- Commissionerdid not find any perversity in the order of the Collector, inspite of that the appointment wasset aside -- Financial Commissioner restored the order of Collector In the judicial review,the power of High Court is limited to the extent of looking into the perversity, illegality orimpropriety in the order passed by the competent authority -- Held, there is no illegality,infirmity or perversity in the order of the Financial Commissioner Writ dismissed. SurenderKumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 202 (P&H).

Appointment of Lambardar Comparative merits Petitioner has misappropriated the

amount of the Cooperative Society of the village and his services were terminated -- Besidesthis private respondent is an Ex-serviceman and is a middle pass and he had been amember of the Market Committee and he also remained Sarpanch of the village -- He alsoremained Sarbrah Lambardar of the village for five years and is well conversant with theworks of the lambardari Collector found private respondent to be a better candidate forappointment to the post of Lambardar -- It is settled law that the choice of the Collectorcannot be set aside lightly. Harbhagwan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner(Revenue), Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 198 (P&H).

Circulation of newspaper


6/31

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Notification u/s 4 -- Publication of notification in twonewspapers -- If there is failure to publish in two daily newspapers or if the publication is intwo newspapers that have no circulation at all in the locality, without anything more, the

notification u/s 4(1) of the Act and the consequential acquisition proceedings will be vitiated,on the ground of non-compliance with an essential condition of section 4(1) of the Act. TheSpecial Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others,2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Notification u/s 4 -- Publication of notification in twonewspapers -- If the two newspapers carrying the publication of the notification havereasonably wide circulation in the locality, then the requirements of section 4(1) are compliedwith -- In that event, neither the notification u/s 4(1), nor the consequential acquisitionproceedings would be open to challenge, on the ground of violation of Section 4 of the

Act. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam &others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Notification u/s 4 -- Publication of notification in twonewspapers -- Pleadings -- If the newspapers in which the notification is published werecirculating in the locality, but did not have a reasonably wide circulation in the locality, thenneither the notification u/s 4(1) nor the consequential acquisition proceedings, will becomevitiated automatically -- If the person aggrieved, apart from demonstrating that the twonewspapers did not have reasonably wide circulation in the locality, also asserts that as aconsequence, he did not have notice of the proposed acquisition that was provided for inSection 4(1) of the Act, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the acquisition to theextent of the land of such person will be vitiated -- But if such assertion is rebutted by theacquiring authority by placing evidence to show that the person concerned had in fact notice(as for example where he participated in the enquiry under section 5A of the Act), theacquisition will not be vitiated. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A.

v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Civil suit

Mutation proceedings In a Civil suit, observation made in the summary proceedings ofthe mutation by the revenue authorities starting from the Assistant Collector Ist Grade uptothe Financial Commissioner, shall not prejudice the mind of the Civil Court and the CivilCourt shall independently decide the suit in accordance with law. Smt. Gurjeet Kaur andothers v. Financial Commissioner and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 200 (P&H).

Clubbing of Three khewats

Partition of land All the three khewats do not have a common joint owners, differentjoint owners are in different khewats -- Held, it would not be appropriate that all the khewats

should have been consolidated and should have been clubbed together -- Clubbing ofkhewats could have been only possible if all the joint owners/co-sharers would have beencommon in all the khewats. Darshan Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana andothers, 2012(1) L.A.R. 114 (P&H).

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908)

Order 37 Rule (1)(2) Ejectment of tenant -- Recovery suit Leave to defend --Ejectment order was passed on account of non-payment of rent Suit for recovery of arrearsof rent -- A perusal of the application for leave to defend shows that neither the rate ofinterest nor the amount claimed by the plaintiff-petitioner had been disputed except to allege


7/31

that the rent note was forged Held, in the absence of any prima facie material tosubstantiate that the petitioner had made payment of the amount either by way of rent ormense profits for the period he had occupied the premises, leave to defend granted by the

trial court was not justified -- Only plea regarding forged rent note could not be a substantialdefence entitling the defendant to leave to defend.Dhrenderpal Gupta v. Mahipal, 2012(1)L.A.R. 171 (P&H).

Comparative merits

Appointment of Lambardar Choice of Collector -- Petitioner has misappropriated theamount of the Cooperative Society of the village and his services were terminated -- Besidesthis private respondent is an Ex-serviceman and is a middle pass and he had been amember of the Market Committee and he also remained Sarpanch of the village -- He alsoremained Sarbrah Lambardar of the village for five years and is well conversant with theworks of the lambardari Collector found private respondent to be a better candidate forappointment to the post of Lambardar -- It is settled law that the choice of the Collector

cannot be set aside lightly. Harbhagwan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner(Revenue), Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 198 (P&H).

Appointment of Lambardar Petitioner is 36 years of age, graduate and diploma holderin computer education, he owns 6 kanal and 11 marlas of land in the village and 32 kanals inanother village -- Petitioner further got Fixed Deposits to the tune of Rs. 57 lac and 15 familyplanning cases Private respondent to the contrary, is 55 years of age, 9th class pass andowns 10 acres of land in the village Private respondent got Fixed Deposits worth Rs.45,74,000/- and Fixed Deposit to the tune of Rs. 8 lac in his own name; one LIC policy and 9cases of family planning, he himself has been a Sarpanch for one term, his Mother has beenPanch for one term -- Petitioner has been a member of the Block Samiti for 5 years andfather of the petitioner also remained Sarpanch of the village Criminal complaint againstrespondent ended in a compromise u/s 323, 324, 326, 341 and 506 IPC -- Acquittal wasrecorded by the Judicial Magistrate Held, after considering overall merits/ disabilities,respondent has substantially more social standing as compared to the petitioner Privaterespondents appointment as Lambardar upheld. Bhim Singh v. Financial Commissioner,Haryana & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 162 (P&H).

Appointment of Lambardar Private Respondent is having more land, son of deceasedLambardar, is also an ex-serviceman, served in the Army for five years and his character hasbeen found to be exemplary and also remained as Sarbrah Nambardar of the village, who iswell conversant with the works of the Lambardar, whereas the reputation of petitioner is notclear as a criminal case has been registered against him -- Petitioner is having less land --Only young age of the petitioner cannot be a ground to appoint him as Lambardar -- Merefact that a number of persons supported the candidature of the petitioner does not give any

right to the petitioner to be appointed as Lambardar Collector appointed petitioner asLambardar Order upheld. Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R.195 (P&H).

Complainant

Right of -- Removal of Panch In pursuance of the complaint made by the complainantand on the basis of reports, the Director removed the Panch Appellate authority acceptedthe appeal without impleading the complainant as a party Held, since the complainant wasthe aggrieved party, so the appellate authority slipped into a legal error in accepting theappeal of private respondent, even without issuing notice to complainant, who was a


8/31

necessary party -- Matter remitted back to Appellate authority.Ashok Kumar v. State ofPunjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 188 (P&H).

Constructive noticeNotice arising by presumption of law from the existence of certain specified facts and

circumstances is constructive or deemed notice -- For example, any person purchasing orobtaining a transfer of an immovable property is deemed to have notice of all transactionsrelating to such property effected by registered instruments till the date of his acquisition or,where the statute provides for publication of the notification relating to a proposed acquisitionof lands in the Gazette and newspapers and by causing public notice of the substance of thenotification at convenient places in the locality, but does not provide for actual direct notice,then such provision provides for constructive notice; and on fulfillment of those requirements,all persons interested in the lands proposed for acquisition are deemed to have notice of theproposal regarding acquisition. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A.v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Delay and laches

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Challenge to Acquisition of land Award not passed withinstatutory period -- Writ petition was filed immediately after pronouncement of the award Could not have been non-suited by invoking the rule of laches. R. Indira Saratchandra v.State of Tamil Nadu & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 136 (SC).

Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 -- Allotment of land Husbandof the petitioner had made supreme sacrifice of his life for the country during the Indo-PakWar of 1965 -- Case of the petitioner for allotment of land to her was duly recommended bythe concerned Commanding Officer Petitioner is directed to move an application and thesame shall be sympathetically considered by the competent authority, without adhering to the

technical objection of non-filing of the application and by passing a well-reasoned speakingorder, within a period of two months thereafter -- Whether the Government is duty bound toconsider the case of petitioner on merits or not? Answer must obviously be in theaffirmative. Jagir Kaur v. The State of Punjab, 2012(1) L.A.R. 116 (P&H).

Deposits made in Bank

Lease Tenancy Occupants did not send any communication informing the ownerabout the deposits nor did the challans showed that the deposits were being made towardsrent -- There were no rent receipts from the appellants -- Respondents did not choose tosend the rents by postal money orders -- There is no explanation as to non-deposit of thealleged rents for the earlier period Held, deposits were not bonafide.DnyaneshwarRanganath Bhandare & Another v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Another, 2012(1)

L.A.R. 120 (SC).

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44of 1954)

Section 33 -- Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), Section2(1-A) -- Evacuee property Allotment of land -- As per the Jamabandi, the land in questionhas been recorded under the ownership of the Central Government, which indicates that it isnot the package deal property -- Appellant was unable to show any document, indicating thatthe property in question was a package deal property Appellant is not entitled for allotment


9/31

of the same under the Punjab Package Act.Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab andanother, 2012(1) L.A.R. 207 (P&H DB).

DisqualificationAppointment of Lambardar Father was defaulter Held, for the fault of father, he

cannot be deprived of his right and his merit cannot be ignored on this ground alone. JaiBhagwan v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 204 (P&H).

Appointment of Lambardar For the fault of the family members, a person claiming hisright in his individual capacity cannot be deprived of those rights. Jai Bhagwan v. FinancialCommissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 204 (P&H).

Duties of Lambardar

A Lambardar is required to know the villagers and other details in the estate forperformance/ discharge of his duties -- A Lambardar is required to remain present, by and

large at all hours, in the village for discharge of his duties -- Duties involve active interactionwith the villagers/residents of the area -- Headman/ Lambardar is required to be aware of thedeaths in the village for various reports to be made -- He is required to be aware of thepensioners residing in the estate; marriage/ re-marriage of a female drawing family pensionresiding in the estate or in case any such person goes absent from estate -- He is alsorequired to be aware of the encroachments on roads or Government buildings within theboundaries of estate -- He is required to conduct crop inspections so as to assist theCollector -- He is further required to attend the summons of authorities having jurisdiction inthe estate and assist all officers of the Government in execution of their public duties. BhimSingh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 162 (P&H).

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949)

Section 13-B NRI landlord Other NRI/Co-owner used his rights as NRI Effect of --Leave to defend -- Whether an NRI landlord, who is a co-owner in two different propertieswhich are in occupation of the tenants, can maintain a petition u/s 13-B of the Act after filingof the petition by his co-owners as NRI in respect of the other property? Sufficient groundsfor granting leave to defend with regard to the maintainability of eviction petition as NRIlandlords. Bachan Kaurs case 2011 (3) L.A.R. 263 (P&H DB) relied. Harbhajan Singh v.Sukhjinder Singh Aulak @ Billa and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 145 (P&H).

Educational qualification

Appointment of Lambardar -- No qualification prescribed under the rules -- There is notmuch difference in 10+2 or Matric. Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1)L.A.R. 132 (P&H).

Election of Panch

Election result Jurisdiction of Returning Officer -- Returning Officer did not have the jurisdiction to direct the Presiding Officer to change the election result already dulyannounced by him by way of election result. Kulwant Singh and another v. State ofPunjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 179 (P&H).

Reservation of Seats -- Category/reservation of seats of Panches already notified beforeelections, cannot possibly be subsequently changed after the completion of election processand declaration of the result. Kulwant Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others,2012(1) L.A.R. 179 (P&H).


10/31

Election result

Election of Panch -- Jurisdiction of Returning Officer -- Returning Officer did not have the

jurisdiction to direct the Presiding Officer to change the election result already dulyannounced by him by way of election result. Kulwant Singh and another v. State ofPunjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 179 (P&H).

Jurisdiction of Presiding officer

Presiding Officer did not have the jurisdiction/power to change the result, by means ofelection result at the direction of Returning Officer -- Same is not only illegal, but against thestatutory provisions of law, as well and cannot legally be sustained. Kulwant Singh andanother v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 179 (P&H).

Embezzlement of Gram Panchayat fund

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 Recovery from ex-Sarpanch Opportunity of hearing

-- By letter ex-Sarpanch was directed to pay an amount, which was kept excessive cash inhand, by him during the period from January 1993 to September, 2010 -- No material,muchless cogent, on record to suggest that any proper inquiry was conducted, afterproviding the opportunity, as contemplated u/s 216 of the Act -- Moreover, the impugnedletter have been issued, without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to him, whichrenders it nullity -- Impugned letter cannot legally be sustained. Gurmail Chand (Ex-Sarpanch) v. The State of Punjab & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 166 (P&H).

Evacuee property

Allotment of land -- As per the Jamabandi, the land in question has been recorded underthe ownership of the Central Government, which indicates that it is not the package dealproperty -- Appellant was unable to show any document, indicating that the property in

question was a package deal property Appellant is not entitled for allotment of the sameunder the Punjab Package Act. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(1)L.A.R. 207 (P&H DB).

F.I.R.

Appointment of Lambardar -- Contention that private respondent is not eligible forappointment as Lambardar since a criminal case was registered against him u/s 323, 324and 34 of the IPC Held, registration of FIR is to set the law in motion -- Those offences arecompoundable and the case has been compromised and challan has not been presented, sothe contention is rejected. Harbhagwan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue),Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 198 (P&H).

FactsPayment of rent -- Question of law -- High Court did not interfere on the ground that no

question of law was involved -- It failed to notice that the inferences and legal effect fromproved facts is a question of law -- High Court order is unsustainable.DnyaneshwarRanganath Bhandare & Another v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Another, 2012(1)L.A.R. 120 (SC).

Father was defaulter


11/31

Appointment of Lambardar Disqualification -- Held, for the fault of father, he cannot bedeprived of his right and his merit cannot be ignored on this ground alone. Jai Bhagwan v.Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 204 (P&H).

Implied notice

If from the facts it can be inferred that a party knew about the subject matter of thenotice, knowledge is imputed by implied notice For example, if the purpose of the notice isto require a party to appear before an authority on a particular date, even though such anotice is not personally served on him, if the person appears before the authority on that dateor participates in the subsequent proceedings, then the person can be said to have impliednotice. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam &others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Instrument of partition

Partition of land Finalisation of -- Private respondents are subsequent vendees, theyhad purchased the land after partition of the land -- Mutation has been sanctioned on thebasis of instrument of partition -- Civil Court in appeal upheld the order of partition also Held, there was no occasion for the Financial Commissioner to set aside the orders of therevenue authorities. Faqir Singh and others v. Financial Commissioner (Co-operation),Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 134 (P&H).

Joint land

Partition of land -- Purchase of specific Khasra Effect of -- Even though the petitionerhas purchased a specific khasra numbers from one of the co-sharers, the same will bedeemed to have been purchased as share in the joint land in question that is why thepartition proceedings are permitted under the provisions of the law -- Long standingpossession over the property cannot be deemed to be possession for all times tocome. Lichhmi v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 193 (P&H).

Jurisdiction of Collector

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Reduction of lease period Collector came to a definite conclusion that the auction was conducted without any propermunadi -- At the time of auction, even BDPO was also not present, his signatures wereobtained lateron -- Collector decreased the period of lease from 8 years to 3 years andordered that if the petitioner is ready to take the pond on Patta at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/-per year after 3 years then he should deposit its th in the Panchayat Department, afterthree years Held, period of lease has been reduced keeping in view the facts of the caseand interest of the Gram Panchayat -- Under section 10-A of the Act, AC 1st Grade is

empowered to cancel the lease or vary the terms thereof unconditionally or subject to suchcondition as he may think fit -- Therefore, it cannot be said that reduction of lease period iswithout jurisdiction. Jaibir v. District Collector, Bhiwani & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 169 (P&HDB).

Jurisdiction of Presiding officer

Election result Presiding Officer did not have the jurisdiction/power to change theresult, by means of election result at the direction of Returning Officer -- Same is not onlyillegal, but against the statutory provisions of law, as well and cannot legally be


12/31

sustained. Kulwant Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 179(P&H).

Jurisdiction of Returning OfficerElection of Panch -- Election result Returning Officer did not have the jurisdiction to

direct the Presiding Officer to change the election result already duly announced by him byway of election result. Kulwant Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1)L.A.R. 179 (P&H).

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894)

Section 4(1) Notification u/s 4 -- Publication of notification in two newspapers -- Objectand purpose is to provide for publication of the preliminary notification in two dailynewspapers having reasonably wide circulation in the locality so that people (personsinterested) in that locality may become aware of the proposals for acquisition. The SpecialDeputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1)L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Section 4(1) Notification u/s 4 -- Publication of notification in two newspapers --Circulation of newspaper -- If there is failure to publish in two daily newspapers or if thepublication is in two newspapers that have no circulation at all in the locality, without anythingmore, the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act and the consequential acquisition proceedings willbe vitiated, on the ground of non-compliance with an essential condition of section 4(1) of the

Act. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam &others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Section 4(1) Notification u/s 4 -- Publication of notification in two newspapers --Circulation of newspaper -- If the two newspapers carrying the publication of the notificationhave reasonably wide circulation in the locality, then the requirements of section 4(1) are

complied with -- In that event, neither the notification u/s 4(1), nor the consequentialacquisition proceedings would be open to challenge, on the ground of violation of Section 4of the Act. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam& others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Section 4(1) Notification u/s 4 -- Publication of notification in two newspapers --Circulation of newspaper Pleadings -- If the newspapers in which the notification ispublished were circulating in the locality, but did not have a reasonably wide circulation in thelocality, then neither the notification u/s 4(1) nor the consequential acquisition proceedings,will become vitiated automatically -- If the person aggrieved, apart from demonstrating thatthe two newspapers did not have reasonably wide circulation in the locality, also asserts thatas a consequence, he did not have notice of the proposed acquisition that was provided for

in Section 4(1) of the Act, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the acquisition to theextent of the land of such person will be vitiated -- But if such assertion is rebutted by theacquiring authority by placing evidence to show that the person concerned had in fact notice(as for example where he participated in the enquiry under section 5A of the Act), theacquisition will not be vitiated. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A.v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Section 4(1) Notification u/s 4 -- Publication of notification in two newspapers -- If theperson challenging the acquisition is able to establish that the notifications weredeliberatelyand with malafides, published in newspapers having negligible circulation, to avoid notice to


13/31

the persons concerned, then section 4(1) will be violated. The Special Deputy Collector,Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Section 4(1) Notification u/s 4 -- Notice -- Acquiring authority need not prove actualnotice of the proposal to acquire u/s 4(1) of the Act, to the person challenging the acquisition-- Such notice can also be by way of implied notice or constructive notice.The SpecialDeputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1)L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Section 4,6,23,24 Acquisition of land -- Market Value -- Sale instance -- Sale deedsexecuted in favour of the family members or persons known to the claimants just about twomonths prior to the issuance of the notification u/s 4(1) are liable to be ignored. Trishala Jain& Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Section 4,6,23,24 Acquisition of land -- Market Value -- Sale instance -- Vendor orvendee of sale deed had not been examined to prove them in Court -- Sale instances cannotbe rejected on that ground. Cement Corporation of Indias case (2004)8 SCC 270relied. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Section 4,6,23,24 Acquisition of land -- Market Value -- Sale instance Law ofdeduction Not possible to state precisely the exact deduction which could be made Deduction is to be applied on account of carrying out development activities like providingroads or civic amenities such as electricity, water etc. when the land has been acquired forconstruction of residential, commercial or institutional projects -- It shall also be appliedwhere the sale instances (exemplars) relate to smaller pieces of land and in comparison theacquisition relates to a large tract of land -- Deduction can also be applied on account ofwastage of land -- It is neither possible nor appropriate to stricto sensu define a class ofcases where the Court would not apply any deduction -- The cases where the acquired landitself is fully developed and has all essential amenities, before acquisition, for the purpose for

which it is acquired requiring no additional expenditure for its development, falls under thepurview of cases of no deduction'. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal &Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Section 4,6,23,24 Acquisition of land -- Market Value -- Sale instance of smaller size ofland Sale instances even of smaller plots could be considered for determining the marketvalue of a larger chunk of land with some deduction unless, there was comparability inpotential, utilisation, amenities and infrastructure with hardly any distinction.Trishala Jain &Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Section 4,6,23,24 Acquisition of land -- Market Value -- Plotting has been done only onpart of the acquired land and the land is surrounded by colonies like ITBP etc. but, there isno evidence to show that the acquired land itself is developed and is having all the required

facilities and amenities -- It may be a case where less deduction may be applied but certainlyit is not a case of no deduction' -- Deduction of 10% from the market value on account ofdevelopment charges and other possible expenditures would be justifiable and called for inthe facts and circumstances of the present case.Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State ofUttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Section 4,6,23,24 Acquisition of land -- Market Value Compensation payable to theclaimants has to be computed in terms of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act -- Market value ofthe land has to be determined at the date of the publication of the notification u/s 4(1) of the

Act, after taking into consideration what is stated under Sections 23(1), 23(1A), 23(2) andexcluding the considerations stated under Section 24 of the Act -- It is not possible to fix the


14/31

compensation with exactitude or arithmetic accuracy -- Court may have to take recourse tosome guesswork while determining the fair market value of the land and the consequentialamount of compensation. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1)

L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Section 4,6,23,24 Acquisition of land -- Market Value Principle of guesstimation --Principle of guesstimation will have no application to the case of no evidence'-- Thisprinciple is only intended to bridge the gap between the calculated compensation and theactual compensation Certain principles controlling the application of guesstimate are : (a)Wherever the evidence produced by the parties is not sufficient to determine thecompensation with exactitude, this principle can be resorted to -- (b) Discretion of the court inapplying guesswork to the facts of a given case is not unfettered but has to be reasonableand should have a connection to the data on record produced by the parties by way ofevidence. Further, this entire exercise has to be within the limitations specified underSections 23 and 24 of the Act and cannot be made in detriment thereto.Trishala Jain & Anr.v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Section 4,6,23,24 Acquisition of land -- Market Value Small sale instance --Deduction from -- Land acquired had the potential of being developed for residential orinstitutional purposes, the same was acquired for construction of a Government PolytechnicInstitute Sale instance is situated at a distance of 1-1/2 furlong from the acquired landcannot be said to be incomparable sale instance, i.e. it has to be taken as a comparable saleinstance Value of sale of small pieces of land can be taken into consideration fordetermining even the value of a large tract of land 10% deduction is made from theestimated market value of acquired land. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal &Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Section 6, 11-A Acquisition of land Stay of proceedings Statutory period for Award-- If any action or proceeding required to be taken after the issue of declaration u/s 6 is

stayed by a Court, the entire period of stay will get excluded in calculating the period of twoyears within which an award is required to be made by the Collector -- Once the stay orderpassed by a Court is vacated or ceases to operate, the clog put on the running of the periodspecified in the main section is removed. R. Indira Saratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu &others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 136 (SC).

Section 6, 11-A Acquisition of land Stay of proceedings Statutory period for Award-- Time taken in supply of copy of the judgment cannot extend the period of two yearsspecified in Section 11A. R. Indira Saratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu & others, 2012(1)L.A.R. 136 (SC).

Section 6, 11-A Acquisition of land Challenge to -- Delay and laches Award notpassed within statutory period -- Writ petition was filed immediately after pronouncement of

the award Could not have been non-suited by invoking the rule of laches. R. IndiraSaratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 136 (SC).

Lease

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Reduction of lease period Jurisdiction of Collector -- Collector came to a definite conclusion that the auction wasconducted without any proper munadi -- At the time of auction, even BDPO was also notpresent, his signatures were obtained lateron -- Collector decreased the period of lease from8 years to 3 years and ordered that if the petitioner is ready to take the pond on Patta at therate of Rs.1,50,000/- per year after 3 years then he should deposit its th in the Panchayat


15/31

Department, after three years Held, period of lease has been reduced keeping in view thefacts of the case and interest of the Gram Panchayat -- Under section 10-A of the Act, AC 1stGrade is empowered to cancel the lease or vary the terms thereof unconditionally or subject

to such condition as he may think fit -- Therefore, it cannot be said that reduction of leaseperiod is without jurisdiction. Jaibir v. District Collector, Bhiwani & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R.169 (P&H DB).

Tenancy Deposits made in Bank -- Occupants did not send any communicationinforming the owner about the deposits nor did the challans showed that the deposits werebeing made towards rent -- There were no rent receipts from the appellants -- Respondentsdid not choose to send the rents by postal money orders -- There is no explanation as tonon-deposit of the alleged rents for the earlier period Held, deposits were notbonafide. Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Another v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar(Shetty) & Another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 120 (SC).

Tenancy -- Electoral Roll will not show whether a person is occupying a premises as a

tenant or as a licencee -- It may at best show that the person was residing in the premises --Inference drawn by the court from the electoral roll, that respondent was not a mere licencee,is totally illogical and unsustainable. Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Another v.Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 120 (SC).

Tenancy -- No lease deed or tenancy agreement to evidence the tenancy; nor werethere any receipts for payment of any rent Owner had given evidence on oath thatrespondents were gratuitous licensees and they had never paid any rent or other chargesand his evidence was corroborated by a neighbour Held, the burden was on the occupantsto establish that they were tenants and not licensees. Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare& Another v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 120 (SC).

Leave to defend

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 -- NRI landlord Other NRI/Co-ownerused his rights as NRI Effect of -- Whether an NRI landlord, who is a co-owner in twodifferent properties which are in occupation of the tenants, can maintain a petition u/s 13-B ofthe Act after filing of the petition by his co-owners as NRI in respect of the other property? Sufficient grounds for granting leave to defend with regard to the maintainability of evictionpetition as NRI landlords. Bachan Kaurs case 2011 (3) L.A.R. 263 (P&H DB)relied. Harbhajan Singh v. Sukhjinder Singh Aulak @ Billa and another, 2012(1) L.A.R.145 (P&H).

C.P.C. -- Ejectment of tenant -- Recovery suit Ejectment order was passed on accountof non-payment of rent Suit for recovery of arrears of rent -- A perusal of the application forleave to defend shows that neither the rate of interest nor the amount claimed by the plaintiff-

petitioner had been disputed except to allege that the rent note was forged Held, in theabsence of any prima facie material to substantiate that the petitioner had made payment ofthe amount either by way of rent or mense profits for the period he had occupied thepremises, leave to defend granted by the trial court was not justified -- Only plea regardingforged rent note could not be a substantial defence entitling the defendant to leave todefend. Dhrenderpal Gupta v. Mahipal, 2012(1) L.A.R. 171 (P&H).

Market Value

Acquisition of land -- Plotting has been done only on part of the acquired land and theland is surrounded by colonies like ITBP etc. but, there is no evidence to show that the


16/31

acquired land itself is developed and is having all the required facilities and amenities -- Itmay be a case where less deduction may be applied but certainly it is not a case of nodeduction' -- Deduction of 10% from the market value on account of development charges

and other possible expenditures would be justifiable and called for in the facts andcircumstances of the present case. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal &Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Acquisition of land -- Principle of guesstimation -- Principle of guesstimation will have noapplication to the case of no evidence'-- This principle is only intended to bridge the gapbetween the calculated compensation and the actual compensation Certain principlescontrolling the application of guesstimate are : (a) Wherever the evidence produced by theparties is not sufficient to determine the compensation with exactitude, this principle can beresorted to -- (b) Discretion of the court in applying guesswork to the facts of a given case isnot unfettered but has to be reasonable and should have a connection to the data on recordproduced by the parties by way of evidence. Further, this entire exercise has to be within thelimitations specified under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act and cannot be made in detrimentthereto. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Acquisition of land -- Sale instance Law of deduction Not possible to state preciselythe exact deduction which could be made Deduction is to be applied on account of carryingout development activities like providing roads or civic amenities such as electricity, wateretc. when the land has been acquired for construction of residential, commercial orinstitutional projects -- It shall also be applied where the sale instances (exemplars) relate tosmaller pieces of land and in comparison the acquisition relates to a large tract of land --Deduction can also be applied on account of wastage of land -- It is neither possible norappropriate to stricto sensu define a class of cases where the Court would not apply anydeduction -- The cases where the acquired land itself is fully developed and has all essentialamenities, before acquisition, for the purpose for which it is acquired requiring no additional

expenditure for its development, falls under the purview of cases of no deduction'. TrishalaJain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Acquisition of land -- Sale instance -- Sale deeds executed in favour of the familymembers or persons known to the claimants just about two months prior to the issuance ofthe notification u/s 4(1) are liable to be ignored. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State ofUttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Acquisition of land -- Sale instance -- Vendor or vendee of sale deed had not beenexamined to prove them in Court -- Sale instances cannot be rejected on thatground.Cement Corporation of Indias case (2004)8 SCC 270 relied.Trishala Jain & Anr. v.State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Acquisition of land -- Sale instance of smaller size of land Sale instances even of

smaller plots could be considered for determining the market value of a larger chunk of landwith some deduction unless, there was comparability in potential, utilisation, amenities andinfrastructure with hardly any distinction. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal &Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Acquisition of land -- Small sale instance -- Deduction from -- Land acquired had thepotential of being developed for residential or institutional purposes, the same was acquiredfor construction of a Government Polytechnic Institute Sale instance is situated at adistance of 1-1/2 furlong from the acquired land cannot be said to be incomparable saleinstance, i.e. it has to be taken as a comparable sale instance Value of sale of small piecesof land can be taken into consideration for determining even the value of a large tract of land


17/31

10% deduction is made from the estimated market value of acquired land.Trishala Jain &Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr.,2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Compensation payable to the claimants has to becomputed in terms of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act -- Market value of the land has to bedetermined at the date of the publication of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act, after takinginto consideration what is stated under Sections 23(1), 23(1A), 23(2) and excluding theconsiderations stated under Section 24 of the Act -- It is not possible to fix the compensationwith exactitude or arithmetic accuracy -- Court may have to take recourse to someguesswork while determining the fair market value of the land and the consequential amountof compensation. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212(SC).

Mutation

Purchase of Specific Khasra -- Partition of land -- Contention that specific khasra

number has been transferred and the mutation should have been sanctioned by the revenueauthorities with respect to that specific Khasra number only Held, contention is notsustainable. Daljit Singh and others v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjaband others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 143 (P&H).

Mutation proceedings

Challenge to Civil suit -- In a Civil suit, observation made in the summary proceedingsof the mutation by the revenue authorities starting from the Assistant Collector Ist Grade uptothe Financial Commissioner, shall not prejudice the mind of the Civil Court and the CivilCourt shall independently decide the suit in accordance with law. Smt. Gurjeet Kaur andothers v. Financial Commissioner and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 200 (P&H).

Res-judicata -- Mutation does not confer any title -- Finding recorded during the mutation

proceedings while sanctioning or rejecting the same in favour of either of the parties in a suitfor declaration of title or possession on the basis of sale deed etc., does not operate as res

judicata. Smt. Gurjeet Kaur and others v. Financial Commissioner and others, 2012(1)L.A.R. 200 (P&H).

Non-reply of Notice

Adverse inference -- In view of the pending litigation, non issue of the replies to thenotices cannot be treated as an admission of the averments in the notices.DnyaneshwarRanganath Bhandare & Another v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Another, 2012(1)L.A.R. 120 (SC).

Notice

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Notification u/s 4 -- Acquiring authority need not proveactual notice of the proposal to acquire u/s 4(1) of the Act, to the person challenging theacquisition -- Such notice can also be by way of implied notice or constructive notice.TheSpecial Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others,2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Non-reply of Adverse inference -- In view of the pending litigation, non issue of thereplies to the notices cannot be treated as an admission of the averments in thenotices.Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Another v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty)& Another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 120 (SC).


18/31

NRI landlord

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 -- Other NRI/Co-owner used his rights as

NRI Effect of -- Leave to defend -- Whether an NRI landlord, who is a co-owner in twodifferent properties which are in occupation of the tenants, can maintain a petition u/s 13-B ofthe Act after filing of the petition by his co-owners as NRI in respect of the other property? Sufficient grounds for granting leave to defend with regard to the maintainability of evictionpetition as NRI landlords. Bachan Kaurs case 2011 (3) L.A.R. 263 (P&H DB)relied. Harbhajan Singh v. Sukhjinder Singh Aulak @ Billa and another, 2012(1) L.A.R.145 (P&H).

Opportunity of hearing

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 Embezzlement of Gram Panchayat fund -- Recoveryfrom ex-Sarpanch By letter ex-Sarpanch was directed to pay an amount, which was keptexcessive cash in hand, by him during the period from January 1993 to September, 2010 --

No material, muchless cogent, on record to suggest that any proper inquiry was conducted,after providing the opportunity, as contemplated u/s 216 of the Act -- Moreover, theimpugned letter have been issued, without affording adequate opportunity of being heard tohim, which renders it nullity -- Impugned letter cannot legally be sustained. Gurmail Chand(Ex-Sarpanch) v. The State of Punjab & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 166 (P&H).

Package deal property

Package deal property is surplus evacuee property taken over by the State Governmentunder the letter of the Central Government, excluding such property as may be required fortransfer or allotment, by way of compensation to a displaced person, as defined in theDisplaced Persons Act and rural agricultural land required for similar allotment to a displacedperson of non-Punjabi extraction in pursuance of the directions of the Central Government

given under Section 32 of the Displaced Persons Act.Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjaband another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 207 (P&H DB).

Partition of land

Instrument of partition Finalisation of -- Private respondents are subsequent vendees,they had purchased the land after partition of the land -- Mutation has been sanctioned onthe basis of instrument of partition -- Civil Court in appeal upheld the order of partition also Held, there was no occasion for the Financial Commissioner to set aside the orders of therevenue authorities. Faqir Singh and others v. Financial Commissioner (Co-operation),Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 134 (P&H).

Joint land Purchase of specific Khasra Effect of -- Even though the petitioner has

purchased a specific khasra numbers from one of the co-sharers, the same will be deemedto have been purchased as share in the joint land in question that is why the partitionproceedings are permitted under the provisions of the law -- Long standing possession overthe property cannot be deemed to be possession for all times to come.Lichhmi v. State ofHaryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 193 (P&H).

Purchase of Specific Khasra -- Mutation Contention that specific khasra number hasbeen transferred and the mutation should have been sanctioned by the revenue authoritieswith respect to that specific Khasra number only Held, contention is not sustainable -- Outof the joint khewat even sale of specific khasra number will be deemed to be sale of share


19/31

which is always subject to partition. Daljit Singh and others v. The FinancialCommissioner (Revenue) Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 143 (P&H).

Three khewats -- Clubbing of -- All the three khewats do not have a common jointowners, different joint owners are in different khewats -- Held, it would not be appropriate thatall the khewats should have been consolidated and should have been clubbed together --Clubbing of khewats could have been only possible if all the joint owners/co-sharers wouldhave been common in all the khewats. Darshan Singh v. Financial Commissioner,Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 114 (P&H).

Pleadings

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Notification u/s 4 -- Publication of notification in twonewspapers -- Circulation of newspaper If the newspapers in which the notification ispublished were circulating in the locality, but did not have a reasonably wide circulation in thelocality, then neither the notification u/s 4(1) nor the consequential acquisition proceedings,

will become vitiated automatically -- If the person aggrieved, apart from demonstrating thatthe two newspapers did not have reasonably wide circulation in the locality, also asserts thatas a consequence, he did not have notice of the proposed acquisition that was provided forin Section 4(1) of the Act, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the acquisition to theextent of the land of such person will be vitiated -- But if such assertion is rebutted by theacquiring authority by placing evidence to show that the person concerned had in fact notice(as for example where he participated in the enquiry under section 5A of the Act), theacquisition will not be vitiated. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A.v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Principle of guesstimation

Acquisition of land -- Market Value Principle of guesstimation will have no application

to the case of no evidence'-- This principle is only intended to bridge the gap between thecalculated compensation and the actual compensation Certain principles controlling theapplication of guesstimate are : (a) Wherever the evidence produced by the parties is notsufficient to determine the compensation with exactitude, this principle can be resorted to --(b) Discretion of the court in applying guesswork to the facts of a given case is not unfetteredbut has to be reasonable and should have a connection to the data on record produced bythe parties by way of evidence. Further, this entire exercise has to be within the limitationsspecified under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act and cannot be made in detrimentthereto. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Publication of notification in two newspapers

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Notification u/s 4 -- Object and purpose is to provide for

publication of the preliminary notification in two daily newspapers having reasonably widecirculation in the locality so that people (persons interested) in that locality may becomeaware of the proposals for acquisition. The Special Deputy Collector, Land AcquisitionC.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Notification u/s 4 -- Circulation of newspaper -- If there isfailure to publish in two daily newspapers or if the publication is in two newspapers that haveno circulation at all in the locality, without anything more, the notification u/s 4(1) of the Actand the consequential acquisition proceedings will be vitiated, on the ground of non-compliance with an essential condition of section 4(1) of the Act. The Special Deputy


20/31

Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151(SC).

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Notification u/s 4 -- Circulation of newspaper -- If the twonewspapers carrying the publication of the notification have reasonably wide circulation inthe locality, then the requirements of section 4(1) are complied with -- In that event, neitherthe notification u/s 4(1), nor the consequential acquisition proceedings would be open tochallenge, on the ground of violation of Section 4 of the Act. The Special Deputy Collector,Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Notification u/s 4 -- Circulation of newspaper Pleadings --If the newspapers in which the notification is published were circulating in the locality, but didnot have a reasonably wide circulation in the locality, then neither the notification u/s 4(1) northe consequential acquisition proceedings, will become vitiated automatically -- If the personaggrieved, apart from demonstrating that the two newspapers did not have reasonably widecirculation in the locality, also asserts that as a consequence, he did not have notice of the

proposed acquisition that was provided for in Section 4(1) of the Act, in the absence ofevidence to the contrary, the acquisition to the extent of the land of such person will bevitiated -- But if such assertion is rebutted by the acquiring authority by placing evidence toshow that the person concerned had in fact notice (as for example where he participated inthe enquiry under section 5A of the Act), the acquisition will not be vitiated. The SpecialDeputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1)L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Notification u/s 4 -- If the person challenging the acquisitionis able to establish that the notifications were deliberately and with malafides, published innewspapers having negligible circulation, to avoid notice to the persons concerned, thensection 4(1) will be violated. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v.J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887)

Section 111, 116 Partition of land Three khewats -- Clubbing of -- All the threekhewats do not have a common joint owners, different joint owners are in different khewats --Held, it would not be appropriate that all the khewats should have been consolidated andshould have been clubbed together -- Clubbing of khewats could have been only possible ifall the joint owners/co-sharers would have been common in all the khewats.Darshan Singhv. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 114 (P&H).

Section 111, 121 Partition of land -- Joint land Purchase of specific Khasra Effectof -- Land in question is a joint -- Even though the petitioner has purchased a specific khasranumbers from one of the co-sharers, the same will be deemed to have been purchased as

share in the joint land in question that is why the partition proceedings are permitted underthe provisions of the law -- Long standing possession over the property cannot be deemed tobe possession for all times to come. Lichhmi v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1)L.A.R. 193 (P&H).

Section 13, 15 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 Appointment of Lambardar Comparative merits Choice of Collector -- Petitioner has misappropriated the amount of theCooperative Society of the village and his services were terminated -- Besides this privaterespondent is an Ex-serviceman and is a middle pass and he had been a member of theMarket Committee and he also remained Sarpanch of the village -- He also remainedSarbrah Lambardar of the village for five years and is well conversant with the works of the


21/31

lambardari Collector found private respondent to be a better candidate for appointment tothe post of Lambardar -- It is settled law that the choice of the Collector cannot be set asidelightly. Harbhagwan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and

another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 198 (P&H).

Section 13,15 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Choice of Collector -- Choice of theCollector cannot be set aside lightly, it can only be set aside if there is any perversity orillegality. Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 132 (P&H).

Section 13,15 Choice of Collector -- Choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightlyunless there is perversity in the order passed by the Collector -- Collector has appreciatedthe comparative merit of the candidates and has come to a conclusion that privaterespondent is a more suitable and meritorious candidate for appointment as Lambardar --Commissioner did not find any perversity in the order of the Collector, inspite of that theappointment was set aside -- Financial Commissioner restored the order of Collector In the

judicial review, the power of High Court is limited to the extent of looking into the perversity,

illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the competent authority -- Held, there is noillegality, infirmity or perversity in the order of the Financial Commissioner Writdismissed. Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 202 (P&H).

Section 34 Mutation proceedings Res-judicata -- Mutation does not confer any title --Finding recorded during the mutation proceedings while sanctioning or rejecting the same infavour of either of the parties in a suit for declaration of title or possession on the basis ofsale deed etc., does not operate as res judicata.Smt. Gurjeet Kaur and others v. FinancialCommissioner and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 200 (P&H).

Section 34 Mutation proceedings Challenge to Civil suit -- In a Civil suit,observation made in the summary proceedings of the mutation by the revenue authoritiesstarting from the Assistant Collector Ist Grade upto the Financial Commissioner, shall not

prejudice the mind of the Civil Court and the Civil Court shall independently decide the suit inaccordance with law. Smt. Gurjeet Kaur and others v. Financial Commissioner andothers, 2012(1) L.A.R. 200 (P&H).

Section 34, 111, 121 Partition of land Instrument of partition Finalisation of --Private respondents are subsequent vendees, they had purchased the land after partition ofthe land -- Mutation has been sanctioned on the basis of instrument of partition -- Civil Courtin appeal upheld the order of partition also Held, there was no occasion for the FinancialCommissioner to set aside the orders of the revenue authorities. Faqir Singh and others v.Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 134 (P&H).

Section 34.111,121 Purchase of Specific Khasra -- Mutation Partition of land --Contention that specific khasra number has been transferred and the mutation should have

been sanctioned by the revenue authorities with respect to that specific Khasra number only Held, contention is not sustainable -- Out of the joint khewat even sale of specific khasranumber will be deemed to be sale of share which is always subject to partition. Daljit Singhand others v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab and others, 2012(1)L.A.R. 143 (P&H).

Punjab Land Revenue Rules

Rule 15 Appointment of Lambardar Disqualification -- Father was defaulter Held,for the fault of father, he cannot be deprived of his right and his merit cannot be ignored onthis ground alone. Jai Bhagwan v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1)L.A.R. 204 (P&H).


22/31

Rule 15 Appointment of Lambardar Disqualification For the fault of the familymembers, a person claiming his right in his individual capacity cannot be deprived of thoserights. Jai Bhagwan v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 204

(P&H).

Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Educational qualification -- No qualificationprescribed under the rules -- There is not much difference in 10+2 or Matric.Harpreet Singhv. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 132 (P&H).

Rule 15 Appointment of Lambardar -- F.I.R. Effect of Contention that privaterespondent is not eligible for appointment as Lambardar since a criminal case was registeredagainst him u/s 323, 324 and 34 of the IPC Held, registration of FIR is to set the law inmotion -- Those offences are compoundable and the case has been compromised andchallan has not been presented, so the contention is rejected.Harbhagwan Singh v. TheFinancial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 198 (P&H).

Rule 15 Appointment of Lambardar Age Experience with father -- Contention thatprivate respondent has made a false statement with regard to his experience and workingwith his Tau Held, in the villages it is a common practice that an aged man is accompaniedby younger male member in the family -- If such statement is made, such cannot be treatedas misleading -- Contention that at the time of death of previous Lambardar, privaterespondent was about 12 years of age and this will affect merit qua the appointment ofrespondent No.5 -- Contention is rejected. Jai Bhagwan v. Financial Commissioner,Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 204 (P&H).

Rule 15 Appointment of Lambardar Comparative merits -- Private Respondent ishaving more land, son of deceased Lambardar, is also an ex-serviceman, served in the Armyfor five years and his character has been found to be exemplary and also remained asSarbrah Nambardar of the village, who is well conversant with the works of the Lambardar,

whereas the reputation of petitioner is not clear as a criminal case has been registeredagainst him -- Petitioner is having less land -- Only young age of the petitioner cannot be aground to appoint him as Lambardar -- Mere fact that a number of persons supported thecandidature of the petitioner does not give any right to the petitioner to be appointed asLambardar Collector appointed petitioner as Lambardar Order upheld. Swaran Singh v.State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 195 (P&H).

Rule 15 Appointment of Lambardar Recommendation of Revenue Authorities Remand by Commissioner Effect of -- Earlier recommendations made by the A.C. IIndGrade and Ist Grade are insignificant, since the Divisional Commissioner, had set aside theorder of the Collector appointing petitioner as Lambardar -- Only the subsequent order afterthe remand is to be taken into consideration. Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab and others,2012(1) L.A.R. 195 (P&H).

Rule 15 Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 15 -- Appointmentof Lambardar Comparative merits Choice of Collector -- Petitioner has misappropriatedthe amount of the Cooperative Society of the village and his services were terminated --Besides this private respondent is an Ex-serviceman and is a middle pass and he had beena member of the Market Committee and he also remained Sarpanch of the village -- He alsoremained Sarbrah Lambardar of the village for five years and is well conversant with theworks of the lambardari Collector found private respondent to be a better candidate forappointment to the post of Lambardar -- It is settled law that the choice of the Collectorcannot be set aside lightly. Harbhagwan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner(Revenue), Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 198 (P&H).


23/31

Rule 15 (c),(d),(e),(f) and (g) Appointment of Lambardar Qualification -- Personalinfluence, character, services rendered to the State by himself or by the family, servicerendered to the community and development programmes are relevant considerations for

appointment of a Lambardar. Bhim Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others,2012(1) L.A.R. 162 (P&H).

Rule 15, 20 -- Appointment of Lambardar Comparative merits -- Petitioner is 36 yearsof age, graduate and diploma holder in computer education, he owns 6 kanal and 11 marlasof land in the village and 32 kanals in another village -- Petitioner further got Fixed Depositsto the tune of Rs. 57 lac and 15 family planning cases Private respondent to the contrary, is55 years of age, 9th class pass and owns 10 acres of land in the village Private respondentgot Fixed Deposits worth Rs. 45,74,000/- and Fixed Deposit to the tune of Rs. 8 lac in hisown name; one LIC policy and 9 cases of family planning, he himself has been a Sarpanchfor one term, his Mother has been Panch for one term -- Petitioner has been a member of theBlock Samiti for 5 years and father of the petitioner also remained Sarpanch of the village Criminal complaint against respondent ended in a compromise u/s 323, 324, 326, 341 and506 IPC -- Acquittal was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Held, after considering overallmerits/ disabilities, respondent has substantially more social standing as compared to thepetitioner Private respondents appointment as Lambardar upheld.Bhim Singh v.Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 162 (P&H).

Rule 15, 20 -- Appointment of Lambardar Qualification Duties of Lambardar -- ALambardar is required to know the villagers and other details in the estate for performance/discharge of his duties -- A Lambardar is required to remain present, by and large at allhours, in the village for discharge of his duties -- Duties involve active interaction with thevillagers/residents of the area -- Headman/ Lambardar is required to be aware of the deathsin the village for various reports to be made -- He is required to be aware of the pensionersresiding in the estate; marriage/ re-marriage of a female drawing family pension residing in

the estate or in case any such person goes absent from estate -- He is also required to beaware of the encroachments on roads or Government buildings within the boundaries ofestate -- He is required to conduct crop inspections so as to assist the Collector -- He isfurther required to attend the summons of authorities having jurisdiction in the estate andassist all officers of the Government in execution of their public duties.Bhim Singh v.Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 162 (P&H).

Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 (21 of 1976)

Section 2(1-A) -- Package deal property -- Package deal property is surplus evacueeproperty taken over by the State Government under the letter of the Central Government,excluding such property as may be required for transfer or allotment, by way ofcompensation to a displaced person, as defined in the Displaced Persons Act and rural

agricultural land required for similar allotment to a displaced person of non-Punjabi extractionin pursuance of the directions of the Central Government given under Section 32 of theDisplaced Persons Act. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R.207 (P&H DB).

Section 2(1-A) -- Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of1954), Section 33 -- Evacuee property Allotment of land -- As per the Jamabandi, the landin question has been recorded under the ownership of the Central Government, whichindicates that it is not the package deal property -- Appellant was unable to show anydocument, indicating that the property in question was a package deal property Appellant is


24/31

not entitled for allotment of the same under the Punjab Package Act. Shamsher Singh v.State of Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 207 (P&H DB).

Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976Rule 3 Press Note Unauthorised occupation -- Khasra Girdawari Change in --

Financial Commissioner, has rightly come to the conclusion that the authorities, whiledetermining the date of possession have to rely upon the khasra girdawari, which exist onthe date of issuance of the Press Note -- Neither an authority can be permitted to rely uponthe corrected khasra girdawari nor such an argument could have been accepted thatpossession of the appellant was much prior to the cut off date. Shamsher Singh v. State ofPunjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 207 (P&H DB).

Rule 4 Allotment of land Delay and laches -- Husband of the petitioner had madesupreme sacrifice of his life for the country during the Indo-Pak War of 1965 -- Case of thepetitioner for allotment of land to her was duly recommended by the concerned Commanding

Officer Petitioner is directed to move an application and the same shall be sympatheticallyconsidered by the competent authority, without adhering to the technical objection of non-filing of the application and by passing a well-reasoned speaking order, within a period of twomonths thereafter -- Whether the Government is duty bound to consider the case ofpetitioner on merits or not? Answer must obviously be in the affirmative. Jagir Kaur v. TheState of Punjab, 2012(1) L.A.R. 116 (P&H).

Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994

Rule 33(2)(2) Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 66 --Election of Panch -- Election result Jurisdiction of Returning Officer -- Returning Officer didnot have the jurisdiction to direct the Presiding Officer to change the election result alreadyduly announced by him by way of election result. Kulwant Singh and another v. State of

Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 179 (P&H).Rule 33(2)(2) Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 66 --

Election result Jurisdiction of Presiding officer -- Presiding Officer did not have the jurisdiction/power to change the result, by means of election result at the direction ofReturning Officer -- Same is not only illegal, but against the statutory provisions of law, aswell and cannot legally be sustained. Kulwant Singh and another v. State of Punjab andothers, 2012(1) L.A.R. 179 (P&H).

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994)

Section 11,12 Election of Panch Reservation of Seats -- Category/reservation ofseats of Panches already notified before elections, cannot possibly be subsequently changedafter the completion of election process and declaration of the result. Kulwant Singh andanother v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 179 (P&H).

Section 20 Removal of Panch -- Director removed Panch on two counts that he andother Members Panchayat have caused huge loss to the government grant and damage tothe panchayat property -- Appellate authority accepted his appeal, without deciding thesubject matter of the lis by passing a non-speaking and non-reasoned order -- Held,

Appellate authority ought to have discussed the material on record and was legally requiredto record valid reasons for arriving at a right conclusion, in order to decide the realcontroversy between the parties in the right perspective Matter remitted back to Appellateauthority. Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 188 (P&H).


25/31

Section 20 Removal of Panch Complainant Right of -- In pursuance of thecomplaint made by the complainant and on the basis of reports, the Director removed thePanch Appellate authority accepted the appeal without impleading the complainant as a

party Held, since the complainant was the aggrieved party, so the appellate authorityslipped into a legal error in accepting the appeal of private respondent, even without issuingnotice to complainant, who was a necessary party -- Matter remitted back to Appellateauthority. Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 188 (P&H).

Section 216 Embezzlement of Gram Panchayat fund -- Recovery from ex-Sarpanch Opportunity of hearing -- By letter ex-Sarpanch was directed to pay an amount, which waskept excessive cash in hand, by him during the period from January 1993 to September,2010 -- No material, muchless cogent, on record to suggest that any proper inquiry wasconducted, after providing the opportunity, as contemplated u/s 216 of the Act -- Moreover,the impugned letter have been issued, without affording adequate opportunity of being heardto him, which renders it nullity -- Impugned letter cannot legally be sustained.GurmailChand (Ex-Sarpanch) v. The State of Punjab & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 166 (P&H).

Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953)

Section 17 Tenant Sale of land Right to Pre-empt -- Landlord is a small landowner, tenant had no right to pre-empt the sale of land Moreover the father of the plaintiffswas ordered to be evicted from the suit land -- Tenancy between the landlord and the fatherof the plaintiffs came to an end Suit was rightly dismissed. Ran Singh and others v. Vijayand others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 176 (P&H).

Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994)

Section 66 -- Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, Rule 33(2)(2) Election of Panch-- Election result Jurisdiction of Returning

February 2012 (1) L.a.reporter

Documents

Transcript of February 2012 (1) L.a.reporter