***

Public premises -- Eviction of unauthorised occupants -- Land recorded as Gair Mumkin Rasta and vested in Municipal Committee -- Appellant failing to establish title over disputed land -- Statutory appeal against eviction order not availed -- Subsequent enforcement notices not constituting fresh adjudication of rights.

***

Public nuisance -- Order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. finding no fresh nuisance not determining title or legality of occupation.

***

Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (24 of 1972), Sections 4, 5 & 9 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 133 -- Constitution of India, Articles 14, 21 & 300-A -- Eviction of unauthorised occupants -- Land recorded as Gair Mumkin Rasta in ownership of Municipal Committee -- Collector directing removal of encroachments on the basis of demarcation report -- Appellant claiming title on the basis of compromise decree and mutation -- Compromise decree not identifying disputed Khasra Number as property conveyed to appellant -- Earlier order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. finding no fresh nuisance not determining title or legality of occupation -- Statutory appeal against eviction order not availed -- Subsequent municipal notices seeking enforcement of eviction order not constituting fresh adjudication of rights -- Appellant failing to establish a legally recognisable right over disputed land -- No ground for interference with judgment dismissing writ petition – Time to vacate extended by two weeks -- Letters Patent Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 11-21)

***

Review of order -- Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 -- Settlement Commissioner has no power to review his own order in absence of statutory authority -- Order passed without jurisdiction -- Impugned orders set aside.

***

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954), Sections 25, 33 & 34 -- Review of order -- Allotment of surplus rural property -- Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Commissioner reviewing and annulling allotment of 66 Kanals 8 Marlas of land in favour of petitioners -- Section 25 confers power to review or amend an order upon Settlement Officer, subject to statutory conditions -- Settlement Officer and Settlement Commissioner are different ranks -- No provision conferring power of review upon Settlement Commissioner -- No notification referred to showing delegation of such power -- Tribunals have no inherent right to review their orders unless such power is specifically conferred -- Order passed by Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Commissioner without jurisdiction -- Impugned orders set aside to the extent of petitioners’ claim for 66 Kanals 8 Marlas of land -- Writ petitions allowed.

(Paras 11-18)

***

Temporary watercourse -- Regularization -- Application for regularization wrongly treated as time-barred appeal -- Superintending Canal Officer ought to have referred application to Competent Authority -- Liberty granted to petitioner to apply for regularization.

***

Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (29 of 1974), Section 2(12), 17, 24 -- Regularization of temporary watercourse -- Application for regularization rejected by Superintending Canal Officer by treating it as a time-barred appeal -- Application was for regularization of watercourse and not an appeal against the order passed by Canal Authorities -- Superintending Canal Officer ought to have referred the application to the Competent Authority instead of dismissing it as time-barred -- Liberty granted to petitioner to move an application before Divisional Canal Officer to be dealt with in accordance with law within six months -- Writ petition disposed of.

(Paras 1-7)

***

Consent decree -- Compulsory registration -- A consent decree transferring immovable property to a nephew on account of services rendered creates a fresh right where no pre-existing legal title exists and is compulsorily registrable.

***

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Sections 17(1)(b), 17(2)(vi), 49 – Transfer of Property – Consent Decree – Compulsory Registration – Pre-existing Right – Mutation Entries – A nephew has no pre-existing legal right or coparcenary interest in the self-acquired or exclusive property of his uncle during the latter’s lifetime, and services rendered do not confer a pre-existing legal title -- The consent decree, having created a fresh right and title in immovable property for the first time, was compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 -- In view of Section 49, the unregistered decree could not be relied upon to establish transfer of ownership -- Consequential mutation entry also did not confer title or divest the uncle of his ownership rights.

(Paras 10-18)

***

Appointment of Lambardar -- Collector’s order appointing the petitioner as Lambardar after assessing comparative merit -- Petitioner serving as Lambardar for over 11 years without any complaint regarding his performance -- Financial Commissioner’s order setting aside the appointment quashed.

***

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Appointment of Lambardar -- Collector’s order appointing the petitioner as Lambardar after assessing comparative merit -- No perversity in the Collector’s order warranting interference -- Petitioner serving as Lambardar for over 11 years without any complaint regarding his performance -- Financial Commissioner’s order setting aside the appointment quashed.

(Para 3-4)

***

Shamilat Deh -- Abadi deh -- Land recorded as Gair Mumkin Abadi of abadi deh -- Long-standing possession and existence of residential structures -- Gram Panchayat failing to establish that the land vested in it or was reserved for a common purpose of the village -- Land not established to be Shamilat Deh -- Bar of civil Court jurisdiction under Section 13 of HVCL 1961 not attracted.

***

Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Sections 2(g) & 13 -- Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 24 -- Shamilat Deh -- Abadi deh -- Dispute regarding possession of land recorded as Gair Mumkin Abadi of abadi deh -- Plaintiffs in long-standing possession and having raised residential structures -- Gram Panchayat issuing notices under Sections 24(1) and 24(2) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and claiming the property as Panchayat/Shamilat land -- Revenue record and oral evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ possession and the character of the property -- Panchayat failing to establish that the property vested in it or was reserved for or being used for a common purpose of the village -- Mere issuance of notice under Section 24 not establishing the Panchayat’s title or right to dispossess the plaintiff -- Bar of civil Court jurisdiction under Section 13 not attracted where the land was not established to be Shamilat Deh vesting in the Gram Panchayat.

(Paras 3-14)

A. Stamp duty -- Industrial property -- Manufacturing activity coupled with sale of manufactured goods -- Sale, including retail sale, of goods manufactured in premises does not change character of use of property from industrial to commercial.

(Para 7)

B. Stamp duty -- Gift deed -- Residential property used for industrial purposes -- Use of property is determinative of valuation.

(Para 10)

C. Stamp duty -- Gift deed -- Property valued as residential though used for industrial purposes -- Residential valuation higher than industrial valuation -- Valuation adopted by executant voluntarily -- Excess stamp duty paid on such valuation not refundable merely because property held to be used for industrial purposes.

(Para 10)

***

Recall of order -- Change in legal position -- Basis of earlier dismissal having ceased to exist, order recalled and writ petition restored.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 151 -- Recall of order -- Subsequent change in legal position -- Writ petition had been dismissed on basis of Supreme Court judgment subsequently reviewed -- Foundation of earlier order having ceased to exist, order of dismissal recalled and writ petition restored to its original number.

(Paras 1-4)

B. Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 13-A -- Disputed questions of fact -- Writ jurisdiction -- Land recorded as “Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Hakdaran Araji Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat” -- Petitioners challenged carving out of plots/Baras and change in nature of land without payment of compensation -- State raised objection that disputed questions of fact were involved and statutory remedy under Section 13-A was available -- Petitioners fairly sought withdrawal of writ petition with liberty to institute suit before Competent Court -- All parties left free to raise all pleas -- Competent Court to decide matter independently in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made by High Court -- In case stay application is filed along with suit, same directed to be considered within three weeks from date of filing.

(Paras 5-9)

***

Parking lot – Lease – Stamp duty -- Expression “lease” includes any instrument by which tolls of any description are let -- Contract for collecting parking fees is regarded as an instrument by which tolls of any description are let, falling within the ambit of a lease deed.

***

Functus officio -- Impounding of a document is purely an administrative function under Section 33 of the Stamp Act -- Doctrine of functus officio has no application in the sphere of administrative law.

***

Adjudication as to proper stamp -- Collector is required only to determine the duty with which, in his judgment, the instrument is chargeable -- Not competent to impose a penalty or direct recovery of the deficient stamp duty, being beyond the scope of his statutory jurisdiction under Section 31 of the Stamp Act.

***

A. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Sections 2(16)(c) and 3 -- Lease -- Tolls -- Parking fees -- Expression “lease” includes “any instrument by which tolls of any description are let” -- Contract in question was meant for collecting parking fees -- Such contract is regarded as an instrument by which tolls of any description are let -- Parking sites were leased out to the petitioner through execution of the instrument in question -- Instrument falls within the ambit of a lease deed and consequently attracts stamp duty payable under Schedule I-A, read with Section 3 of the Stamp Act -- Instrument in question cannot be regarded as a simpliciter operation and management agreement.

(Para 18-22)

B. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 33 -- Impounding -- Functus officio -- Licence agreement expired on 31.01.2023, whereas the instrument was impounded subsequently on 16.05.2023 -- Audit Stamp Department is duty-bound to examine every document to ascertain whether the requisite stamp duty has been duly paid thereon -- In case of insufficient stamp, matter is required to be brought to the notice of the competent authority, who may proceed to impound the document in exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 33 -- Impounding of a document is purely an administrative function under Section 33, whereas assessment of deficiency in stamp duty by the Collector is a quasi-judicial function -- Doctrine of functus officio has no application in the sphere of administrative law -- Neither the Audit Stamp Department nor the Joint Commissioner had become functus officio upon expiry of the licence agreement.

(Para 23-25)

C. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 33 -- Impounding -- Public office -- Section 33(3) provides that, “in cases of doubt”, the State Government may determine what offices shall be deemed to be public offices -- Requirement of a determination by the State Government arises only when there exists a doubt -- Office of the Joint Commissioner cannot, by any reasonable construction, be regarded to be other than a public office -- Mere non-determination or non-declaration by the State Government does not curtail the powers of the Joint Commissioner to impound a document under Section 33 of the Stamp Act.

(Para 34, 35)

D. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 31 -- Adjudication as to proper stamp -- Penalty -- Recovery of deficient stamp duty -- Under Section 31, where an instrument is brought before the Collector for adjudication, Collector is required only to determine the duty with which, in his judgment, the instrument is chargeable -- Section 31 does not postulate anything further to be done by the Collector -- After giving his opinion under Section 31, duties and powers of the Collector under Section 31 come to an end -- Collector is not competent to impose a penalty or direct recovery of the deficient stamp duty, same being beyond the scope of his statutory jurisdiction under Section 31 of the Stamp Act.

(Para 38, 40-42)

***

Mutation -- Registered Will -- Revenue authorities have right to conduct summary inquiry when a document is produced for mutation but have no jurisdiction to comment upon the validity of a registered document.

***

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (6 of 1887), Sections 34, 36 -- Mutation -- Registered Will -- Summary inquiry -- Revenue authorities are required to update annual records with respect to inheritance, sale and other transfers and have right to conduct summary inquiry when a document is produced for mutation -- However, they have no jurisdiction to comment upon the validity of a registered document -- Validity and legality of Will to be agitated before Civil Court.

(Paras 6-8)

***

Appointment of Lambardar – Appointment of an older and less educated candidate despite the superior comparative merit of the rival candidate held perverse – Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution justified – Letters Patent Appeal dismissed.

***

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15, 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Judicial Review -- Candidature of Advocate’s clerk – Age and Educational Qualifications -- Appellant was appointed as Lambardar by the District Collector, upheld by the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner --  Respondent No. 4 was 32 years of age and 10+2 pass, whereas the appellant was 62 years old and sixth pass -- Respondent No. 4’s father had served as a Lambardar, making him familiar with the job requirements -- Finding that the appellant possessed greater experience was baseless in the absence of any document showing familiarity with Lambardari work -- Working as a Clerk with an Advocate was an asset rather than a disqualification, as it increased familiarity with legal and administrative work -- Although the writ Court ordinarily cannot act as an appellate authority to reassess comparative merit, judicial review is warranted where the decision-making process suffers from patent perversity, illegality or non-consideration of relevant statutory criteria -- Selection of the appellant over the comparatively younger, more educated and better-equipped respondent No. 4 was perverse -- Learned Single Judge justified in setting aside the orders of the revenue authorities and directing appointment of respondent No. 4 as Lambardar -- Letters Patent Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 6–9)

***

Lambardar -- Appointment -- Hereditary claim -- Merely because father of candidate worked as Lambardar, merit of rival candidate cannot be ignored.

***

Lambardar -- Appointment -- Choice of Collector -- Appellate authority ought not interfere in choice made by District Collector in absence of perversity.

***

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 17 -- Lambardar -- Appointment -- Hereditary claim -- Merely for the reason that father of respondent worked as Lambardar, merit of petitioner cannot be ignored -- Hereditary claim cannot prevail to the exclusion of comparative merits of rival candidates.

(Para 4)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Sections 13, 16 -- Appointment of village Headman/Lambardar -- Choice of Collector -- Interference by appellate authority -- Choice of Collector should not be interfered with unless and until same is found to be perverse or having suffered with extraneous consideration or result of misreading of material evidence -- Appellate Court cannot substitute its own perception as to merits of candidate when two views are possible -- Financial Commissioner ought not have interfered with choice made by District Collector in absence of perversity.

(Paras 5 and 6)

***

"Dead Rent" and "Royalty" -- Dead Rent depends on the area of the mine and is fixed whereas the royalty relates to the quantity of minerals extracted only and is variable.

***

Mining Lease -- Stamp Duty -- Determination -- Stamp duty on execution of a mining lease is payable on the basis of anticipated royalty and not dead rent.

***

A. Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Sections 9 & 9A -- Dead Rent and Royalty -- Distinction -- Dead rent is the minimum amount payable by the lessee to the lessor irrespective of whether mining operations are undertaken and is determined with reference to the area leased -- Royalty is payable on the quantity of minerals extracted or removed from the leased area and varies according to such extraction -- Thus, dead rent is fixed, whereas royalty is variable.

(Para 6)

B. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 26 -- Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, Rule 31 & Form K -- Stamp Duty -- Mining Lease -- Computation -- Anticipated Royalty -- Appellant applied for a lease to mine limestone -- Dispute arose whether the determinant for the rate at which stamp duty for the agreement was to be calculated would be the "dead rent" or the "anticipated royalty" -- With respect to mining, actual value can only be determined once mining operations commence and, therefore, the value of the subject-matter is indeterminate on the date of execution of the agreement -- Parties consciously executed the lease deed in the statutory Form K, which clearly stipulates that anticipated royalty is the yardstick for computation of stamp duty -- Proviso to Section 26 is not inconsistent with the main provision -- Stamp duty is to be computed on the basis of anticipated royalty and not dead rent.

(Para 2, 10-14)

***

Lambardar -- Appointment -- Comparative merits -- Commissioner having himself found both candidates equal in merit, could not interfere with choice made by District Collector.

***

Lambardar -- Appointment -- Government employee -- Respondent being in Government service, his availability for discharge of Lambardar duties is relevant consideration.

***

A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 -- Lambardar -- Appointment -- Comparative merits -- Commissioner having himself found both candidates equal in merit, could not interfere with choice made by District Collector that too by relying upon 3% reservation to be given to the handicapped persons -- Financial Commissioner also erred in affirming order of Commissioner -- Orders set aside.

(Paras 7 to 10)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 -- Lambardar -- Appointment -- Availability of candidate -- Government employee -- Respondent being in Government service, his availability to residents of village was in issue -- Collector had considered petitioner’s permanent residence in village and his ability to remain available for discharge of Lambardar duties -- Relevant consideration overlooked while interfering with Collector’s choice – Order passed by the Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner cannot be sustained.

(Paras 3, 8-10)

***

Partition suit -- Co-sharers reflected in the revenue record are not required to be impleaded where the suit relates to a constructed house situated in an abadi area and such co-sharers have no concern with the property in dispute.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Impleadment of parties -- Necessary party -- Partition suit -- House situated in abadi area -- Other co-sharers reflected in Jamabandi having no concern with the house in dispute -- Merely because they are recorded as co-owners in the revenue record, they are not required to be impleaded as defendants for effective adjudication of the suit.

(Para 4)

B. Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Supervisory jurisdiction -- Impleadment of parties -- Trial Court allowed impleadment of all co-sharers without appreciating the admitted nature of the suit property -- Order held not justified and set aside in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.

(Para 4)

***

Shamlat Deh Land – Acquisition of land -- Reference Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot determine whether acquired land is shamlat deh; question of title to be adjudicated by authorities under the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

***

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Sections 18, 30 – Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Sections 11, 13 -- Land Acquisition – Entitlement of Compensation -- Shamlat Deh -- Jurisdiction of Reference Court -- Reference Court under Section 30 of the 1894 Act could not determine whether the disputed land was shamlat deh -- Question of right, title or interest in the land was to be determined by the authorities under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, subject to the jurisdictional bar under Section 13 -- Appellants granted liberty to approach the competent authorities for a declaration that the acquired land was not shamlat deh and, upon such declaration, avail remedies permissible by law regarding compensation.

(Paras 7-13)

***

Street vendors -- Relocation to vending zones must be accompanied by adequate public amenities.

***

A. Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (7 of 2014) -- Street vendors -- Relocation -- Vending zones must be fully operational with basic civic amenities and proper signage -- Authorities directed to issue smart cards to vendors, install CCTV cameras, maintain vendor database, provide public amenities and establish helpline to ensure safety, transparency and effective regulation.

(Paras 1, 6)

B. Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (7 of 2014), Section 11 & 20 -- Appeals and applications -- Expeditious disposal -- Pending applications/appeals to be decided within 60 days after affording opportunity of hearing -- Fresh applications/appeals to be decided within 30 days, subject to provisions of the Act and Bye-laws.

(Para 6)

C. Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (7 of 2014) -- Essential Service Providers -- Notification dated 17.07.2020 expanding definition of Essential Service Providers and extending vending hours beyond original Bye-laws -- Issued during COVID-19 pandemic -- Having outlived its purpose, notification quashed and earlier notification restored.

(Para 7)

***

Surplus Area -- Banjar Qadim land not liable to be included in surplus area.

***

Revenue Record -- Non-reflection of surplus declaration -- Cannot prejudice rights of a bona fide purchaser.

***

A. Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 2(8) -- Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 12 -- Surplus Area -- Banjar Qadim land -- Inclusion of -- Validity of -- Banjar Qadim land not being liable to be taken into consideration while determining permissible or surplus area, its inclusion renders the order declaring surplus area without jurisdiction -- Such an order cannot be sustained merely because no objection was raised by the landowner during surplus proceedings.

(Paras 14 to 17)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 41 -- Bona fide purchaser -- Protection of -- Revenue record continued to depict vendor as owner in possession despite alleged declaration of surplus area -- Purchaser having acted in good faith after making due enquiry from official revenue record is entitled to protection under Section 41 -- State cannot defeat rights of such purchaser by relying upon an order never reflected in public revenue record.

(Paras 18 & 19)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Section 100 -- Second Appeal -- Interference with judgment of First Appellate Court -- First Appellate Court ignored settled legal position excluding Banjar Qadim land from determination of surplus area and upheld an order suffering from inherent lack of jurisdiction -- Judgment and decree set aside -- Judgment and decree of Trial Court restored.

(Paras 20 to 23)

***

Royalty -- Enhancement of rate -- Subsequent statutory amendment prevailing over prior contractual stipulation -- Liability to pay royalty determined with reference to date of removal/dispatch of mineral and not date of auction or acceptance of bid.

***

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Section 9 -- Royalty -- Iron ore sold through e-auction -- Bid accepted and royalty deposited at rate of 10% -- Royalty enhanced to 15% before removal of mineral pursuant to amendment of Second Schedule -- Royalty payable at rate prevailing on date of dispatch/removal of mineral -- Contractual stipulation regarding royalty cannot override subsequent statutory amendment -- Additional royalty validly recovered from security deposit -- High Court erred in directing refund.

(Paras 10-13)

***

Land Revenue Act -- Revision -- Mutation attested in 2004 challenged after about 20 years -- Revisional powers exercisable only within reasonable time though no limitation prescribed -- Belated revision entertained without considering delay or accrued third-party rights held unsustainable -- Order setting aside mutation quashed and mutation restored.

***

A. Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, Samvat 1996 (1939 A.D.) (XII of Samvat 1996), Section 15 -- Revisional jurisdiction -- Exercise after unreasonable delay -- Mutation attested in 2004 challenged by revision petition filed in 2021 -- No application for condonation of delay and no finding regarding sufficiency of cause -- Revisional powers, though not subject to any prescribed period of limitation, required to be exercised within a reasonable period -- Entertaining revision after nearly two decades without cogent explanation impermissible -- Order of Financial Commissioner set aside and mutation restored.

(Paras 30-44, 47-60)

B. Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, Samvat 1996 (1939 A.D.) (XII of Samvat 1996), Section 15 -- Revisional jurisdiction -- Delay and laches -- Long-standing mutation remaining unchallenged for about twenty years -- Mutation having remained operative for about twenty years and third-party rights having accrued during intervening period -- Reopening concluded mutation after extraordinary delay without considering effect on accrued rights and settled position held unsustainable.

(Paras 36-45, 52-58)

C. Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, Samvat 1996 (1939 A.D.) (XII of Samvat 1996), Section 15 -- Revisional jurisdiction -- Fraud -- Mere allegation of fraud does not confer indefinite period for exercise of revisional powers -- Even where fraud is alleged, revisional jurisdiction must be exercised within reasonable time from its discovery -- Bald and unsubstantiated plea of fraud insufficient to unsettle long-standing mutation.

(Paras 39, 49, 57)

***

Co-sharer property -- Purchaser from co-sharer acquires only such rights and possession as vendor himself possessed and cannot claim exclusive possession unless vendor was in exclusive possession of specific khasra numbers.

***

Permanent injunction -- Joint property -- Co-sharer in joint possession is not entitled to injunction restraining other co-sharers from alleged interference on basis of claim of exclusive possession not proved.

***

Revenue record -- Exclusive possession -- Burden of proof -- Failure to produce revenue record showing vendor's exclusive possession prior to sale deed is fatal to claim of exclusive possession by vendee.

***

Additional evidence -- Relevancy -- Sale deed relating to different khasra numbers and executed by a person not party to suit is neither relevant nor necessary for adjudication of dispute and cannot be permitted in appeal.

***

A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 8 -- Co-sharer property -- Sale by co-sharer -- Vendor being co-sharer in joint property could transfer only such rights and possession as he himself possessed -- Purchaser cannot claim exclusive possession unless vendor was established to be in exclusive possession of specific khasra numbers at time of sale.

(Paras 13 to 16)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 38 -- Permanent injunction -- Joint possession -- Vendor not proved to be in exclusive possession of suit land -- Purchaser held only a co-sharer in joint possession -- Not entitled to injunction restraining other co-sharers from interference with suit property.

(Paras 14 to 16)

C. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Revenue record -- Khasra Girdawari -- Exclusive possession -- Khasra Girdawari reflected possession of different co-sharers and joint possession of suit land -- Absence of any revenue record showing exclusive possession of vendor prior to execution of sale deed negatived purchaser's claim of exclusive possession.

(Paras 14 and 15)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 -- Additional evidence -- Additional evidence sought to be produced related to different khasra numbers and purchase of share from a person not party to suit -- Evidence neither relevant nor necessary for adjudication of appeal -- Application rightly dismissed.

(Para 16)

***

Court fee -- Refund of excess court fee -- Issue of court fee is a matter between plaintiff and Court -- Issuance of notice to defendants and affording them opportunity of hearing not necessary.

***

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Sections 10 and 11 -- Refund of court fee -- Excess court fee -- Issue of court fee is a matter between plaintiff and Court -- Defendants have no role to play in adjudication of claim for refund of excess court fee -- Issuance of notice to defendants and affording them opportunity of hearing not necessary.

(Para 9, 10)

***

Partition proceedings -- Mode of partition -- Allotment of land and road frontage -- Minor adjustments in possession to allot shares in accordance with the mode of partition do not amount to violation thereof, where the mode was consciously accepted and its essential features were substantially maintained.

***

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Sections 118, 121 -- Partition Proceedings – Mode of Partition – Adjustment of Possession – Road Frontage – Rasta/Common Passage – Appellant had consciously accepted the mode of partition without objection at the relevant stage -- Partition cannot be carried out with mathematical precision, and minor adjustments may be necessary considering the number of co-sharers, shape and location of land, its nature and value, existing possession and provision of passages -- Minor changes in possession to allot land according to respective shares do not amount to violation of the mode of partition where its essential features are substantially maintained -- Intra-court appeal dismissed.

(Para 12-16)

***

Lambardar -- Appointment upheld as proclamation was duly conducted and petitioner failed to apply in time; Collector’s choice found non-perverse -- Writ petition dismissed.

***

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 – Appointment of Lambardar – Mustri munadi/proclamation – Challenge to appointment – Record showing due proclamation in village including entry in rojnamcha and statements of Panchayat members – Petitioner failed to apply within prescribed time and thus has no locus standi – Financial Commissioner upheld Collector’s order after comparative assessment of candidates and found no perversity in Collector’s decision – Choice of Collector in Lambardar appointment not to be interfered with unless perverse – Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 not to be exercised to re-appreciate merits – Writ petition dismissed.

(Paras 7 to 9)

***

Status quo order -- Allegation that respondents/plaintiffs violated status quo by starting business/working in shops -- Even then, petitioner/defendant cannot unilaterally seal shops during subsistence of status quo order.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 -- Status quo order -- Allegation that respondents/plaintiffs violated status quo by starting business/working in shops -- Even then, petitioner/defendant cannot unilaterally seal shops during subsistence of status quo order -- Such action held unsustainable and direction for de-sealing upheld.

(Paras 2 and 3)

***

Mutation proceedings -- Disputed title -- Pendency of civil suit -- Revenue authorities justified in keeping mutation proceedings in abeyance till final adjudication of title by competent Civil Court.

***

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 -- Mutation proceedings -- Disputed title -- Registered will -- Proceedings kept in abeyance -- Mutation arising on death of landowner -- Registered Will propounded by sons, while one of them had already instituted civil suit challenging validity of Will and claiming ownership -- Assistant Collector adjourned mutation proceedings sine die awaiting decision of Civil Court -- Where title over property is disputed and matter is pending before Civil Court, mutation entries in revenue records must remain in abeyance till title is finally adjudicated -- Plea that mutation proceedings cannot be kept in abeyance held without merit -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Paras 1-9)

***

Partition of land -- Challenge to concluded partition proceedings under Haryana Land Revenue Act -- No objection raised at stage of mode of partition/Naksha Bey/Naksha Jeem -- Tubewell land already allotted and landlocked khasra not entitled to separate Rasta -- Partition upheld as involving equitable adjustment and not mathematical precision -- Writ petitions dismissed.

***

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Act No. XVII of 1887), Sections 111, 114, 116, 118, 121, 122 and 125 -- Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 -- Partition proceedings -- Mode of partition -- Clause providing that partition will be carried out while maintaining possession -- Petitioners challenging partition on ground of violation of mode of partition, non-allotment of tubewell land, absence of Rasta and unfair partition -- Petitioners already allocated area where tubewell installed has been allotted to them -- No reasonable basis to claim entire Killa number -- Claim for separate Rasta rejected as land found landlocked and not abutting any existing revenue passage -- No occasion for providing Rasta to land locked area -- Petitioners did not raise objections to mode of partition or Naksha Bey and Naksha Jeem at relevant stage -- Partition proceedings completed with Sanad Taksim -- Partition cannot be carried out with mathematical precision and adjustments are required depending upon various factors including possession, location, nature and value of land and passage -- Writ petitions dismissed.

(Paras 7 to 12)

***

Mutation -- Unregistered Will -- Genuineness of Will falls within jurisdiction of civil Court.

***

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (17 of 1887), Section 34 -- Mutation -- Unregistered Will -- Revenue Courts -- Mutation sanctioned on basis of natural succession -- Petitioner having already approached competent civil Court seeking declaration of title on basis of alleged Will -- Jurisdiction to pronounce upon genuineness or otherwise of Will vests with civil Court -- No compelling reason to interfere with orders passed by revenue authorities -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Paras 7 to 9)

***

Will -- Exclusion of natural heirs -- Mere exclusion of wife and children from inheritance not by itself a suspicious circumstance.

***

Non-framing of proper points for determination by First Appellate Court -- Effect -- Mere technical non-compliance not sufficient to vitiate judgment when Appellate Court has substantially complied with requirements of law by thoroughly considering evidence, rival contentions and recording reasons -- Judgment of First Appellate Court upheld.

***

Affidavit -- Evidentiary value -- Affidavit of attesting witnesses denying execution of Will -- Affidavit not substantive evidence unless deponent subjected to cross-examination in accordance with law.

***

A. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Will -- Due execution and attestation -- One attesting witness examined -- Attesting witness specifically deposed that testator executed Will in his presence and both signed in presence of each other -- Requirement of proof of execution duly satisfied -- Concurrent findings upholding genuineness of Will affirmed.

(Paras 27 to 30)

B. Mutation entries -- Effect -- Mutation entries do not confer title and are only for fiscal purposes -- Mere mutation of property in favour of wife and children of deceased not affecting title flowing under validly executed Will.

(Para 31)

C. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 -- Will -- Suspicious circumstances -- Exclusion of natural heirs -- Mere exclusion of wife and children from inheritance not by itself suspicious circumstance -- Testator legally entitled to dispose of property according to his wishes.

(Paras 32 to 34)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 41 Rule 31 -- First Appellate Court -- Non-framing of proper points for determination -- Substantial compliance -- Mere technical non-compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC not sufficient to vitiate judgment where Appellate Court substantially complied with requirements by scrutinising evidence and assigning reasons -- Judgment held not suffering from illegality.

(Para 37)

E. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 3 -- Affidavit -- Evidentiary value -- Affidavit not substantive evidence unless deponent available for cross-examination -- Affidavits of attesting witnesses denying execution of Will filed even before filing of written statement and without Court notice -- Such affidavits rightly held unreliable and discarded.

(Para 38)

***

Public nuisance -- Illegal encroachment on public street -- Removal of unauthorized ramps and structures -- Maintainability of writ petition -- Efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 152 BNSS, 2023 -- Writ petition dismissed with liberty to avail statutory remedy.

***

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 152 -- Public nuisance -- Illegal encroachment on public street -- Petition seeking removal of unauthorized ramps, platforms and structures allegedly raised over public street by way of encroachment – State raised objection regarding availability of statutory remedy under Section 152 BNSS -- Petitioner unable to controvert said objection -- High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and relegated petitioner to avail remedy in accordance with law.

(Paras 1 to 4)

***

Sarpanch/ Panch/ Panchayat Secretary -- Enquiry -- Alleged misuse of Panchayat funds on private land -- Absence of prima facie material -- Prayer for roving enquiry not maintainable -- Writ petition dismissed.

***

Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 -- Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Sections 51(3) and 53 -- Sarpanch/ Panch/ Panchayat Secretary -- Enquiry -- Allegation of misuse and misappropriation of Panchayat funds for construction of passage on private land -- Petitioner sought enquiry against Sarpanch, Panches and Panchayat Secretary along with recovery of allegedly misappropriated amount -- Except representations submitted by petitioner, no substantive material placed on record to prima facie support allegations -- Petitioner held to be seeking a roving enquiry on speculative foundations -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Paras 3 to 5)

Writ jurisdiction -- Challenge to notice issued by District Development and Panchayat Officer under provisions of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 -- Petitioner relegated to avail statutory remedy by submitting response before competent authority.

***

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Sections 20, 200 and 208 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Show-cause notice issued by District Development and Panchayat Officer -- Judicial review at preliminary stage -- Scope -- High Court should not entertain writ petitions against notices issued by statutory authorities as a matter of routine -- Party must ordinarily submit reply before competent authority and pursue statutory remedies against adverse order, if any -- Writ petition dismissed, however, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail her other remedies, in accordance with law.

(Para 4-5)

***

Lambardar -- Appointment -- Vegetable Vendor -- Better merits of candidate cannot be brushed aside merely on ground that candidate is a vegetable vendor.

***

Lambardar -- Appointment -- Business or vocation -- Taking up business or trade or vocation which is a bread-earner for candidate and his family cannot be taken as a disqualification.

***

Lambardar -- Appointment -- Scheduled Caste Lambardar -- Services rendered to State by candidate or his family -- Personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness to be considered.

***

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 19-B(i) -- Appointment of Scheduled Caste Lambardar -- Relevant considerations -- Services rendered to State by candidate or his family -- Personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness -- Regard shall be had to such matters while appointing Headman.

(Para 9)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 19-B(i) -- Lambardar -- Comparative merits -- Vegetable Vendor -- Respondent more educated and younger than petitioner -- Better merits of respondent completely brushed aside by Collector merely observing that respondent was a vegetable vendor -- Order of Collector apparently perverse -- Taking up business or trade or vocation which is a bread-earner for candidate and his family cannot be taken as a disqualification.

(Paras 9 to 11)

Watercourse -- Change of alignment -- Challenge to orders passed by Canal Authorities directing restoration of sanctioned watercourse on common watt (boundary) between lands of parties -- Dismissal of civil suit on account of failure to prove demarcation report does not negate existence of sanctioned watercourse.

***

Punjab Canal and Drainage Act, 2023 (11 of 2023), Section 14(3) -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Change in alignment of watercourse -- Scope of judicial review -- Canal Authorities competent to restore alignment of sanctioned watercourse running on common watt between adjoining landowners -- Dismissal of civil suit on account of failure to prove demarcation report does not negate existence of sanctioned watercourse -- Canal Authorities rightly directed demarcation through Local Commission before implementation of alignment -- Direction held fair and in interest of all shareholders to ensure operationalization of watercourse at originally sanctioned site -- Impugned orders upheld.

(Paras 6 to 9)

***

Pre-emption – Co-sharer – Right of kinsfolk co-sharer -- Plaintiff being co-sharer in joint khewat was entitled to exercise right of pre-emption even though he was related to vendor -- Declaration of Section 15(2) of Punjab Pre-emption Act as unconstitutional did not take away right of co-sharer under Section 15(1)(b).

***

Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (1 of 1913), Section 15(1)(b) Fourthly, 15(2) – Pre-emption suit -- Plaintiff sought possession by way of pre-emption on ground of being co-sharer in joint khewat -- Defendant contended that since plaintiff was related to vendor, claim could arise only under Section 15(2), which had been declared ultra vires -- Held, right of pre-emption available to co-sharer under Section 15(1)(b) remains intact notwithstanding declaration of Section 15(2) as unconstitutional -- Kinsfolk of vendor, if also co-sharers, are entitled to maintain suit for pre-emption under Section 15(1)(b) Fourthly -- Judgments and decrees passed by Courts below decreeing suit upheld -- Regular Second Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 7 to 10)

Lambardar -- Appointment -- Collector found respondent more suitable candidate and appointed him as Lambardar -- Concurrent findings recorded by Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner upheld -- No illegality or perversity found -- Writ petition dismissed.

***

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Sections 28, 29 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rules 14 to 16 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Scope of judicial review -- Choice of Collector in matter of appointment of Lambardar should not be lightly interfered with merely because another view is possible -- Interference warranted only in cases of patent illegality or perversity -- Concurrent findings of Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner affirming appointment of respondent as Lambardar -- No illegality or perversity therein -- No ground made out for interference in writ jurisdiction.

(Paras 8 to 10)

Partition proceedings -- Clubbing of partition proceedings relating to different khewats -- Mere convenience of some co-sharers not sufficient to direct clubbing of khewats having different co-sharers -- Clubbing permissible only with consent of all co-sharers.

***

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 111, 121 -- Partition proceedings -- Clubbing of khewats -- Different co-sharers in different khewats -- Partition proceedings cannot be clubbed unless all co-sharers consent to same -- Clubbing of three khewats, which are subject matter of three separate partition applications, having different co-sharers cannot be permitted unless all the co-sharers in respective khewats agree to the same -- Merely for convenience of the some of the co-sharers, the partition cannot be carried out by directing clubbing of khewats unless all the co-sharers consent to the same.

(Paras 4 to 12)

***

Nominee –Savings account’s Nominee is entitled only to receive amount lying in account and does not acquire ownership of entire estate by virtue of nomination alone.

***

Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 370 -- Nominee -- Succession certificate -- Plaintiff proved to be nominee in post office savings account -- Nomination held to confer right only to withdraw amount lying in account and not succession rights over entire estate -- Succession certificate obtained by defendant without impleading plaintiff and without disclosure of complete facts not conclusive of title -- It merely authorizes collection of debts and securities and does not adjudicate ownership of the estate conclusively.

 (Paras 12, 13)

Panch -- Removal from office -- Unauthorized possession of Panchayat land -- Petitioner removed from post of Panch -- Eviction order attained finality as same was never challenged -- Authorities rightly held petitioner disqualified to continue as Panch.

***

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Sections 51(3), 175(n) -- Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 -- Removal of Panch -- Unauthorized occupation/ encroachment -- Eviction order passed by Assistant Collector against petitioner regarding Gram Panchayat land -- Once eviction order attained finality and remained unchallenged, competent authority justified in invoking provisions of Sections 51 and 175(n) for removing petitioner from post of Panch -- No ground for interference in writ jurisdiction.

(Paras 5 to 7)

Sarpanch -- Removal from office -- Unauthorized occupation of Panchayat land -- Demarcation conducted pursuant to Court order established encroachment by petitioner and his brother over Panchayat Deh land -- Writ dismissed.

***

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Sections 51(3), 175(n) -- Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 -- Removal of Sarpanch -- Unauthorized possession of Panchayat land -- Deputy Commissioner removed petitioner from office of Sarpanch on allegation of encroachment over land recorded as Panchayat Deh -- High Court directed demarcation under supervision of SDM in presence of petitioner and stakeholders -- Demarcation report established illegal occupation to extent of 1171 sq. yards by petitioner and his brother -- No merit -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 3, 4)

***

Co-sharer’s right for enhanced compensation -- Co-sharers in acquired land entitled to enhanced compensation awarded to other co-owners even without filing reference u/s of Land Acquisition Act, though interest liable to be restricted.

***

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) Section 18, 28-A -- Enhanced compensation without filing reference -- Entitlement of co-sharers -- Execution petition dismissed by Executing Court on ground that petitioners had not sought reference u/s 18 of the Act -- Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramphal’s case (SC) (2026) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20854 held co-sharers entitled to same compensation as awarded to other co-owners in acquired land though interest restricted -- Petitioners held entitled to compensation alongwith statutory benefits in terms of award passed in favour of co-sharers -- Matter remitted to Executing Court for fresh adjudication and release of amount in accordance with directions issued by Supreme Court -- Impugned order set aside.

(Para 5-8)

***

Ad valorem Court fee -- Plaintiff being signatory/executant of sale deed and seeking possession after its revocation along with recovery of specified amount, held, liable to pay ad valorem Court fee notwithstanding suit being styled as one for mandatory injunction.

***

Court Fees Act, 1870, S.7(iv)(c), Art.17(iii) Sch.II -- Ad valorem Court fee -- Suit for possession camouflaged as mandatory injunction -- Plaintiff sought revocation/cancellation of sale deed executed by himself and also sought release of specified balance sale consideration -- Mere clever drafting of suit as one for mandatory injunction cannot avoid payment of proper Court fee – Signatory of sale deed seeking its annulment liable to pay ad valorem Court fee on consideration mentioned in deed -- Trial Court rightly directed plaintiff to affix ad valorem Court fee -- Revision dismissed.

(Paras 10 to 15)

Lambardar -- Appointment -- Sarbrah Lambardar -- Mere experience as Sarbrah Lambardar does not confer preferential right to appointment -- Choice of Collector upheld -- Writ dismissed.

***

Lambardar -- Appointment -- Sarbrah Lambardar -- Preference to a Sarbrah Lambardar can be granted only where comparative merits of candidates are nearly equal -- Candidate younger in age, possessing larger landholding and recommended by lower revenue authorities rightly preferred for appointment.

***

A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (17 of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Challenge to orders of Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner appointing respondent as Lambardar -- Petitioner contended that being a former Sarbrah Lambardar, he was entitled to preference in view of Government notification dated 25.12.2021 -- Held, preference on basis of service as Sarbrah Lambardar cannot override comparative merits of candidates and grant of such preference being akin to hereditary claim already held unconstitutional -- Appointed candidate found younger in age, possessing larger landholding and recommended by lower revenue authorities -- Collector after considering comparative merits appointed respondent as Lambardar -- Choice of Collector not liable to interference unless shown to be perverse or suffering from patent illegality -- No illegality or perversity found in concurrent orders passed by revenue authorities -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 6 to 10)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (17 of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Sarbrah Lambardar -- Mere experience as Sarbrah Lambardar not decisive -- Preference on such basis can be granted only when comparative merits of candidates are substantially similar -- Appointed candidate found younger in age than petitioner, possessed larger landholding and was recommended by lower revenue authorities -- Appointment upheld.

(Para 7)

***

Panchayat (Haryana) -- Election petition -- All contesting candidates should have been impleaded as parties and the impleading of only the returned candidate was not sufficient.

***

Handwriting expert – Report -- It is of advisory value and the science of examination of handwriting is not a perfect science.

***

A. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 163, 176 – Election petition – Necessary party -- All contesting candidates -- In terms of the provisions of Section 176 of the 1994 Act, all contesting candidates should have been impleaded as parties and the impleading of only the returned candidate was not sufficient.

(Para 19)

B. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 163, 176 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 39 -- Election petition – Report of the handwriting expert – It is of advisory value and the science of examination of handwriting is not a perfect science.

(Para 19)

C. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 163, 176 – Election petition – An election cannot be set aside on the mere asking of another contesting party.

(Para 20)

A. Property – Title – Entry in property register of Municipal Corporation -- Proof of title – Except for a random entry in its property register, the MCD never asserted title over the plots in question before any forum – A mere entry in the list of properties maintained by the MCD cannot, by itself, constitute a valid proof of title over the subject land.

(Para 24, 27)

B. Property – Layout plan – Land earmarked for public purpose – De-reservation – Effect – Land originally earmarked for a High School – Competent authority de-reserved the land admeasuring 1600 sq. yards – No material on record to show that notwithstanding such de-reservation, land would continue to retain character of being reserved for a public purpose – Finding that land required to be retained for public purpose held unsustainable on the face of the record.

(Para 28)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (6 of 1918), Section 41 – Regular Second Appeal -- Scope -- Applicability of Punjab Courts Act, 1918 vis-à-vis Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -- In States of Punjab & Haryana, second appeals governed by Section 41 of 1918 Act and not by Section 100 CPC -- No requirement to frame substantial question of law. Position settled by Pankajakshi’s, (2016) 6 SCC 157, Kirodi’s  (2019) 11 SCC 317 = (2019) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14222 and Satender’s case, 2022 (12) Scale 92.

(Para 6)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 6 -- Family settlement – Spes Successionis -- Nature of property/ right to be included – Family settlement is not circumscribed to parties possessing an existing legal title in the property – Law recognizes that such a settlement may validly be arrived at even amongst persons having a semblance of a claim, a possible expectancy, or a mere chance of succession – It has been unequivocally held that even a prospective or contingent right to succeed to property constitutes a sufficient juridical basis for entering into a family arrangement -- Children and grandchild of the appellants-plaintiffs, possessed a legitimate expectation or chance of succession in the event of intestate devolution -- Consequently, the existence of such a potential claim furnishes an adequate legal foundation for the family settlement.

(Para 12, 12.1)

C. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 – Compromise decree/ Family settlement – Requirement of Registration -- Decree merely formalized and recognized the pre-existing rights which had already accrued to the respondents-defendants pursuant to the family settlement effected in the year 1989 -- In such circumstances, the decree falls within the category of declaratory recognition of antecedent rights and, therefore, does not attract the requirement of compulsory registration.

(Para 12.4)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 4 -- Fraud / misrepresentation -- Pleading and proof – Allegations must be pleaded with specificity and particularity -- Full particulars of fraud, undue influence, and misrepresentation has to be clearly set out in the pleadings -- Allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and undue influence must be pleaded with precision and specificity, detailing the manner, circumstances, and particulars thereof -- A bald and omnibus assertion, devoid of material particulars, does not satisfy the statutory requirement -- Moreover, such allegations are required to be substantiated by cogent, convincing, and reliable evidence.

(Para 12.6, 16, 16.1)

E. Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 11 -- Transfer / Family Settlement – Minor is beneficiary -- Validity -- Family settlement, wherein a minor member of the family is conferred a share in immovable property, cannot be rendered null and void merely on account of the minority of such beneficiary -- Jurisprudential foundation of a family settlement is fundamentally distinct from that of a contractual arrangement inter se parties -- A family settlement, being an arrangement intended to preserve harmony, avoid disputes, and secure equitable distribution of property within the family, cannot be invalidated solely on the ground that one or more beneficiaries had not attained the age of majority at the relevant time.

(Para 18)

F. Mutation -- Nature and effect -- Mutation entries, being fiscal in nature, neither confer nor extinguish title -- Respondents-defendants derive their title not from the mutation, but from the judgment and decree -- Consequently, any error in the mutation entries does not, ipso facto, divest the appellants-plaintiffs of their rightful share in the property.

(Para 18.5)

G. Limitation -- Suit for possession based upon title – There is no limitation for seeking possession on the basis of title.

(Para 18.6)

***

Panchayat election -- False declaration -- Concealment of pending criminal case in nomination form amounts to false declaration and valid ground for annulment of election.

***

Panchayat election -- Disqualification -- Six years’ bar from contesting elections under Section 146(2) of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act held neither arbitrary nor disproportionate.

***

Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (4 of 1994), Sections 122(1)(n), 131, 146(1), 146(2) -- Constitution of India, Articles 14, 21, 226 -- Panchayat election -- False declaration in nomination form -- Concealment of pendency of criminal case -- Election of petitioner as Pardhan earlier set aside on ground of deliberate suppression of criminal antecedents -- Deputy Commissioner thereafter disqualified petitioner for six years under Section 146(2) -- Challenge to constitutional validity of Section 146(2) on ground that punishment was harsh, disproportionate and arbitrary for want of discretion to impose lesser penalty -- Rejected -- Held, disclosure of criminal antecedents in nomination form is mandatory and concealment thereof constitutes false declaration attracting statutory disqualification --  Six years’ disqualification cannot be termed arbitrary or disproportionate as legislative intent is to ensure exclusion of disqualified candidate from at least the next Panchayat election cycle -- Provision enacted to preserve purity, transparency and accountability in electoral process -- Section 146(2) constitutionally valid.

(Paras 11 to 19)

***

Writ jurisdiction -- Co-operative society election -- Challenge to validity of bye-laws governing eligibility to contest elections to Management Committee of District Milk Unions -- District Milk Unions held not “State” within meaning of Article 12 -- Internal governance and electoral disputes held not to involve public law element -- Writ petitions not maintainable.

***

Writ jurisdiction -- Co-operative society election -- Mere supervisory or regulatory control by State not sufficient to render society instrumentality of State -- Writ lies only where body performs public duty or breaches statutory obligation of public character.

***

Writ jurisdiction -- Co-operative society election -- Election disputes touching constitution, management or business of society -- Registrar vested with exclusive jurisdiction -- High Court ought not to bypass statutory remedy under Article 226.

***

A. Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (Act 16 of 2002), Sections 58, 60, 104 to 107 and 125 -- Constitution of India, Articles 12, 226 -- Co-operative society election -- Challenge to validity of bye-laws governing eligibility to contest elections to Board of Directors of District Milk Unions -- Maintainability of writ petitions -- District Milk Unions autonomous member-driven bodies governed by provisions of Act, Rules and bye-laws -- Unions neither departments of State nor owned, financially controlled or administratively dominated by State so as to constitute instrumentalities of State within meaning of Article 12 -- Mere existence of regulatory or supervisory control by Registrar or State Co-operative Election Authority not determinative -- Internal management, governance and electoral disputes do not by themselves attract writ jurisdiction merely because societies owe incorporation to statute -- Act, 2001 provides complete self-contained adjudicatory mechanism through Registrar, arbitration, appeal, Tribunal, review and revision -- Disputes relating to validity of bye-laws governing elections fall squarely within statutory framework under Sections 58 and 60 -- Writ petitions filed without exhausting efficacious statutory remedy held not maintainable -- High Court erred in bypassing statutory dispute resolution mechanism and entertaining writ petitions under Article 226.

(Paras 14 to 15.12)

B. Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (Act 16 of 2002), Sections 8, 18, 28 and 32 -- Co-operative society -- Elections -- Bye-laws -- Eligibility criteria -- Validity of -- Statutory framework expressly contemplates that elections shall be conducted in accordance with Act, Rules and bye-laws of society -- Bye-laws not external or extraneous to election process -- Bye-laws regulating minimum milk supply, continuity of operations and prescribed audit classification held to regulate candidature and continuation in office -- Conditions intended to ensure minimum level of functional connection, participation and suitability in relation to affairs of society -- Impugned bye-laws do not impose disabling or punitive bar contemplated under Section 28 -- Absence of eligibility merely postpones right to contest till prescribed conditions fulfilled -- Conditions held reasonable, non-arbitrary and within statutory competence of society -- Invalidation of the bye-laws on the premise that they impose disqualifications is, therefore, legally unsustainable.

(Paras 17 to 19.7)

C. Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (Act 16 of 2002), Sections 19, 32 -- Co-operative society -- Elections -- Bye-laws -- Eligibility criteria -- Election -- Right to vote vis-à-vis right to contest election -- Distinction -- Neither right to vote nor right to contest election is fundamental right -- Rights are purely statutory in nature and exist only to extent conferred by statute -- Right to contest election is distinct and additional statutory right to office and may legitimately be made subject to qualifications, eligibility conditions and disqualifications -- Impugned bye-laws directed only at eligibility of President or representative of primary co-operative society to contest election to or continue as member of Board of Directors -- Bye-laws do not regulate or curtail right of members to cast vote -- Regulation of candidature cannot be equated with restriction on right to vote.

(Paras 18 to 18.7)

***

Co-owner -- Permanent injunction -- Construction over joint property can be restrained where it prejudices rights of other co-owners and affects partition proceedings -- Concurrent findings granting injunction held proper -- RSA dismissed.

***

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 37, 38 -- Co-owner -- Permanent injunction for raising construction – Co-owner in exclusive possession ordinarily cannot be restrained from raising construction over joint property, however injunction can be granted where such construction is detrimental to interests of other co-owners and may prejudice partition proceedings -- Defendants having stalled partition proceedings and simultaneously raised construction to consolidate possession, Courts below rightly held their conduct prejudicial to plaintiffs’ rights -- Discretionary relief of injunction properly exercised -- No perversity or illegality in concurrent findings -- Regular Second Appeal dismissed.

(Para 11-14)

***

Mutation -- Civil Court -- Rights of parties to be ultimately decided by Civil Court, whose decision would bind revenue authorities.

***

Mutation -- Civil Court -- Civil Court would ultimately decide rights of parties in relation to subject property -- Decision of Civil Court binding upon revenue authorities -- Parties directed not to continue to agitate their respective claims in relation to mutation -- Authorities concerned directed to maintain status quo insofar as existing mutation entries are concerned, without prejudice, and await decision of Civil Court in pending suit.

(Paras 5 to 9)