Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 13, 13A – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Mutation in favour of Gram Panchayat -- Jumla Mushtarka Malkan land – Vesting of – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Jurisdiction to decide such question exclusively vests in the court of Collector – Plaintiffs may avail the remedy under Section 13A of the 1961 Act.

(Para 2, 5-7)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of lambardar – Age of candidate -- Inter-se merits were compared and the petitioner was virtually double of the age of respondent No.4 and the petitioner was less qualified, however, Collector appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of the village -- In the appeal, respondent No.4 being younger in age and more qualified, was found more suitable -- Commissioner and Financial Commissioner have rightly remanded the case to the Collector for decision afresh – Reappreciation of the case afresh would also meet the ends of justice.

(Para 5-7)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 – Recovery of tentative amount/ damages -- Advalorem court fee -- Whenever the plaintiff files a money suit for recovery either as damages or otherwise his assessment is approximate or tentative which is subject to the final determination by the Court -- Liability to pay the court fee at the time of filing of the suit is not dependent upon the final determination by the Court -- Court fee is payable on the amount claimed in the suit -- Once the plaintiff has tentatively assessed the amount sought to be recovered in a money suit, Clause (i) of Section 7 of the 1870 Act, gets attracted.

(Para 9)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47A – Proceedings u/s 47A of Indian Stamp Act -- Limitation -- Sale deed executed in 2011, the proceedings were initiated in the year 2020, after about more than 9 years – Held, proceedings can be initiated within 3 years from the execution of the sale deed – Proceedings initiated clearly barred by limitation and could not have been initiated – Petition accepted, impugned order as well as the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner set aside.

(Para 9-11)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 20, 22 -- Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Suspension of Sarpanch – Authorized Sarpanch -- Sitting Sarpanch suspended and out of 11 Panches, 8 Panches, i.e. petitioners No.2 to 8 are with petitioner No.1 – Petitioners submits that, petitioner No.1 be appointed as the authorised Panch in view of Section 22 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Writ petition disposed of with a direction DDPO to decide the representation given by petitioners in accordance with law preferably within one month.

(Para 1-5)

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 24 -- Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 11 -- Encroachment on Panchayat land – Notice/ Eviction u/s 24 of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Legality of -- Evidence in respect of encroachments may surface only in fully contested proceedings, launched u/s 7 or 11 of the 1961 Act – Issuance of notices u/s 24 of the Act held to made with lack of application of mind, cryptic, slipshod and in an ill-informed, therefore quashed and set aside – However, the Gram Panchayat may through a petition u/s 7 or 11 of the Act before the Collector seek the eviction of the encroachers.

(Para 6, 7)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Correction in the record of rights – Writ petition – Petitioner has already filed an representation before Deputy Commissioner and the same is pending consideration since 22.04.2022 and no progress is being made in the same – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to Deputy Commissioner to look into the representation and decide the same within a period of one month in accordance with law.

(Para 1-5)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Revenue case – Speedy disposal – Case pending before Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner, Revenue (Haryana) since 2016 – Respondent No.1 directed to expedite the hearing of the said case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months.

(Para 2-5)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Choice of the Collector cannot be interfered in a cavalier manner and the same has to be given weightage unless and until there are some serious discrepancies in the appointment made by the learned Collector.

(Para 7)

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 – Co-parcenery property -- Right and liabilities of co-parceners daughter – She carries the same liabilities and disabilities as a son does -- Coparceners have right to alienate for consideration, to demand partition, to joint possession and usufruct, to maintenance, to make Will of one’s interest, to restrain unauthorized disposal, to surrender one’s interest and to survivorship -- Similarly, every coparcener is liable to repay the loans which were raised for the purposes of the family -- This obligation exists to the extent of his own interest in the joint family property -- His personal or separate property is not bound by this obligation.

(Para 8)

B. Odisha Land Reforms Act, 1960 (16 of 1960), Section 19(1)(c) -- Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Co-parcenery property -- Right and liabilities of co-parceners daughter – A woman will have an equal share in undivided family property -- Sons and daughters of a coparcener become coparceners by virtue of birth -- A female heir or male relative of such female heir have same rights and liabilities – Claims Commission has committed error apparent on the face of the record by passing the order impugned denying benefit to the daughter – Daughter has a right to get the property of her father from the date the Amendment Act came into force, i.e., in 2005 – Order set aside, matter remitted back to the Claims Commission for its re-adjudication by giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties.

(Para 10-13)

A. Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 5 – Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 3(2), 12 -- Sale of shamlat land – Procedure, purpose and price of sale -- A conjoint reading of Section 5 of the Act and Sub Clause 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1964 makes it crystal clear that the Gram Panchayat with the previous approval of the State Government can sell the shamlat land for the purpose mentioned in Sub Clause 2 of Rule 3 to Government Department or its undertaking/agency at the rate not less than the Collector rate notified by the Government from time to time.

(Para 15)

B. Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 5 – Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 3(2), 12 -- Sale of shamlat land to CISF – Land required for entablement of Central Industrial Security Force Unit -- Resolutions are routed through the Deputy Commissioner to the State Government -- Deputy Commissioner assess the price of the land as per the rates and the State Government granted the approval -- CISF has to perform the sovereign duty, therefore, Court do not find that the proposed approval by the State Government suffers from any illegality or violation of any Rules/Regulations framed under the Act of 1961.

(Para 18)

Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7(1)(2) -- Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Eviction -- Illegal possession of gair-mumkin gali -- Demarcation report – Proof of -- Authors of 4 different demarcation reports never stepped into witness box – Demarcation got conducted on the directions of High Court, the author of that demarcation report, is also required to be stepping into witness box, to prove such demarcation, and, the petitioner has a right to cross-examine such witness – The above recourse cannot be adopted before the writ Court rather it can be adopted only before the learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade -- Impugned orders quashed, lis remanded to Assistant Collector Ist Grade -- Author of the demarcation report to step into witness box to prove the same and thereafter petitioner to cross-examine such witness – Thereafter, Assistant Collector Ist Grade to make a lawful decision thereon after hearing all the affected persons.

(Para 5)

Gram Panchayat land – Gairmumkin rasta -- Eviction of encroacher – Ex-parte demarcation -- In cross-examination, Demarcation officer admitted that he had not caused service nor also he obtained the apposite signatures on the list of the appearing litigants before him -- He has also admitted, that his signatures are not there on the list of presences -- No reliance was amenable to be placed upon his demarcation report – Impugned orders set aside -- Matter remitted back for fresh demarcation.

(Para 1, 2, 5-7)

A. Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 3(r) -- Wakf -- Under the Muslim law, a wakf can be created in several ways but primarily by permanent dedication of any movable and immovable property by a person professing Islam for any purpose recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable purpose and in the absence of such dedication, it can be presumed to have come into existence by long use.

(Para 25)

B. Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 3(r) -- Wakf -- Ordinarily, a wakf is brought into existence by any express dedication of movable or immovable property for religious or charitable purpose as recognized by Muslim Law -- Once such a dedication is made, the property sought to be dedicated gets divested from the wakif, i.e., the person creating or dedicating it and vests in the Almighty Allah -- The wakf so created acquires a permanent nature and cannot be revoked or rescinded subsequently -- The property of the wakf is unalienable and cannot be sold or transferred for private purpose.

(Para 26)

C. Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 3(r) -- Wakf by usage – There is even no concrete evidence on record to prove that the suit land prior to the year 1900 or 1867 was actually being used as a burial ground (kabristan) – Therefore, the alleged use of the suit land as burial ground prior to 1900 or 1867 is not sufficient to establish a wakf by user in the absence of evidence to show that it was so used -- Thus, it cannot constitute a wakf by user.

(Para 29)

D. Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 4, 5 -- Wakf Act, 1954 (29 of 1954), Section 4, 5-- Wakf property – Declaration of – Procedure of -- Argument that the suit land has been declared to be a wakf property vide notification dated 29.04.1959 -- In this regard, it has to be noted that such a declaration has to be in consonance with the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1954 or the Waqf Act, 1995 --  Both the aforesaid Acts lay down the procedure for issuing notification declaring any property as a wakf –

-- The Wakf Act, 1954, which actually is relevant for our purpose, provides that, first, a preliminary survey of wakfs has to be conducted and the Survey Commission shall, after such inquiry as may be deemed necessary, submit its report to the State Government about certain factors enumerated therein whereupon the State Government by a notification in the official Gazette direct for a second survey to be conducted. Once the above procedure of survey is completed and the disputes arising thereto have been settled, on receipt of the report, the State Government shall forward it to the Wakf Board.  The Wakf Board on examining the same shall publish the list of wakfs in existence with full particulars in the official Gazette as contemplated under Section 5 of the Act. Similar provisions exist under the Waqf Act, 1995.

-- A plain reading of the provisions of the above two Acts would reveal that the notification under Section 5 of both the Acts declaring the list of the wakfs shall only be published after completion of the process as laid down under Section 4 of the above Acts, which provides for two surveys, settlement of disputes arising thereto and the submission of the report to the State Government and to the Board.

Therefore, conducting of the surveys before declaring a property a wakf property is a sine qua non.

(Para 30-32)

E. Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 4, 5 -- Wakf Act, 1954 (29 of 1954), Section 4, 5 -- Wakf property – Declaration of – Challenge to -- No material or evidence on record that before issuing notification u/s 5 of the Wakf Act, 1954, any procedure or the survey was conducted as contemplated by Section 4 of the Act -- In the absence of such a material, the mere issuance of the notification u/s 5 of the Act would not constitute a valid wakf in respect of the suit land -- Therefore, the notification is not a conclusive proof of the fact that the suit land is a wakf property.

(Para 32)

F. Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 4, 5 -- Wakf Act, 1954 (29 of 1954), Section 4, 5-- Notification by Wakf Board – Gazette notification -- Wakf Board is a statutory authority under the Wakf Act -- Therefore, the official Gazette is bound to carry any notification at the instance of the Wakf Board but nonetheless, the State Government is not bound by such a publication of the notification published in the official Gazette merely for the reason that it has been so published -- Notification, if any, published in the official Gazette at the behest of the Wakf Act giving the lists of the wakfs is not a conclusive proof that a particular property is a wakf property especially, when no procedure as prescribed under Section 4 of the Wakf Act has been followed in issuing the same.

(Para 35)

G. Approbate and reprobate -- It is settled that law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate as no party can accept and reject the same instrument -- A person cannot be permitted to say at one time that the transaction is valid and to obtain advantage under it and on the other hand to say that it is invalid or incorrect for the purposes of securing some other advantage.

(Para 44)

Covid-19 – Limitation -- Where the limitation of a case was expiring during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, limitation in such a situation was to start from 01.03.2022 and a period of 90 days was to be granted to file the necessary application/appeal etc. -- Revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default on 12.10.2020 -- Application for restoration was filed on 13.12.2021, dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2022 – Orders fall in the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 -- Dismissal of the restoration application on the ground of limitation by the Commissioner is against law and deserves to be set aside – Order set aside, Commissioner directed to decide the application for restoration afresh after hearing the petitioner and in accordance with law. Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation” in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022 (SC) relied.

(Para 5-7)

A. Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(viii) – Shamilat deh -- Non-inclusion in shamilat deh – Plea of -- Pedigree table has not been placed on record, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim that they were either lawful successors in interest of their purported predecessors in interest, who were purportedly recorded, as hisedarans over the petition lands, in the records of rights prepared prior to 1950.

(Para 8(a))

B. Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) – Shamilat deh -- Gair Mumkin -- Charand lands -- Record of rights prepared prior to the year 1950, reveals that lands are recorded as Gair Mumkin and or as charand lands -- In view of Section 2(g)(5) of 'the PVCL Act', the said lands also assigned to the panchayat.

(Para 8(b))

C. Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(viii) – Shamilat deh -- Charand, banjar quadim and gair mumkin lands -- In the jamabandi, there is no hisedari possession nor there could be any valid partition in respect of the above categories of land -- Placing reliance upon any purported private partition which occurred in the year 1943-44 is insignificant nor the benefit of the savings clause can be assigned to the petitioners.

(Para 9)

Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7 – Panchayat land – Eviction -- Disputed khasra numbers are evidently owned by the Gram Panchayat -- Principal premise for decree of eviction rested upon demarcation report -- Despite several opportunities, the petitioner failed to adduce evidence for repelling the worth of the demarcation report – Petitioner omitted to ask for the summoning of the author of the demarcation report so as to ensure cross examination upon him -- Effect of the waivers and abandonments, is that, the petitioner is deemed to have acquiesced to the validity of the drawing of the demarcation report relied upon by the statutory authorities below -- Impugned orders do not suffer from any gross perversity – No merit in the writ petition, dismissed.

(Para 5-8)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Revenue rasta – Constitutional right of single individual – Resistance by Gram Panchayat -- Even if only a single individual may become benefitted from the construction of a revenue rasta at the instance of the Collector of the revenue district yet the above is not a sufficient and well informed reason for the Panchayat to resist to make compliance with the orders of the Collector, as thereby there would be breach of the mandate of right to life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

-- Constitutional mandate of right to life, also encapsulates, the right to a road being constructed upto, the homestead of any citizen, thus for facilitating able ambulance services being purveyed to a citizen, thus requiring emergent medical aid.

-- Solemn duty cast upon the Gram Panchayat to enable all villagers concerned to become facilitated with an ambulance road.

-- Imperatively also when the Panchayat lands are meant for the common purposes of the village proprietary body, thus are meant to as such rather also serve the above purpose, which also is a purpose, which tenably serves any member of the village proprietary body concerned.

Writ petition of Gram Panchayat dismissed.

(Para 7-9)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11 -- Gair Mumkin Gali -- Eviction – Res-judicata -- Dismissal order on the earlier petition carrying therein a cause of action or subject matter or khasra numbers similar to the ones as carried in the extant petition is not sufficient to attract to the extant petition the estopping principle of constructive resjudicata unless also in the earlier motion either the petitioner or his predecessor in interest became impleaded as a party -- One of the respondents, who became impleaded therein was the predecessor in interest, of the present petitioner – Subsequent motion was necessarily barred by the estopping principle of res-judicata.

(Para 4, 5)

A. Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (31 of 1973), Section 4, 5 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7 -- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, Rule 16(iii) – Gair Mumkin Makan – Eviction -- After consolidation petition land entered as “Gair Mumkin Abadi” and in the column of ownership, the entry of “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan va Digar Haqdaran Arazi Deh Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewatdar” – Gram Panchayat has management and control only, therefore, in the said capacity, when any of the person concerned, raises a “Gair Mumkin Makan” on the land, it becomes enabled to seek his eviction therefrom, as a “Gair Mumkin Makan” – No entry of “abadi deh” existing in the ownership column -- Land is required to be owned by the Gram Panchayat, for its being well enabled to institute a lawful motion u/s 7 of the Act of 1961, whereas, the petition land never became owned by the Gram Panchayat -- Therefore, the institution of an eviction petition, u/s 4 and 5 of the Act of 1973, is a valid motion -- Eviction order upheld.

(Para 1, 2, 9-13)

B. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(1)(4a) -- “Abadi Deh” -- “Gair Mumkin Abadi” -- Legal incidence of any land entered in the revenue record as “abadi deh” is that the abadi owners can raise their abadis on the land described in the revenue record as “abadi deh” (The land which is not cultivable because of inhabitation over it) -- Contrarily, any land entered in the revenue record as “Gair Mumkin Abadi” does not carry a co-equal legal incidence, as is impartible to land, described in the revenue record, as “abadi deh” land.

(Para 9)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 -- Shamilat deh -- Title dispute -- Suit for rendition of a declaratory decree by Gram Panchayat to declare as owner of the suit land – Concurrent decision against writ petitioner/ defendant -- Sale certificate  issued for auction sale by rehabilitation department in favour of the petitioner not produced before competent authority, attached in writ – After assigning only prima-facie credence impugned verdicts quashed, lis remanded to the learned Collector and ensure that it is proven in accordance with law but also with an opportunity to adduce cogent rebuttable evidence thereto Gram Panchayat – Court directed to decide the lis afresh but positively within 3 months.

(Para 1-4)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 7 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ for a mandamus – Unauthorized occupation of Hadda Rori land – Demarcation of land – Eviction -- Respondents are purportedly delaying in making a lawful demarcation – Writ petition allowed, empowered Revenue Officer directed to forthwith make lawful demarcation(s) of the petition lands, and, thereafter to supply a certified copy of the demarcation report to the BDPO -- In case the said demarcation report reveals, that some encroachments, are made on the lands designated as Hadda Rori, thereupon, the BDPO concerned, is directed to forthwith institute a petition under Section 7 of the Act, before the learned Collector, who shall on receiving the said petition but after hearing all affected concerned, hence make a lawful decision thereon within 3 months of preferment of the said petition.

(Para 1-5)

Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) -- Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 6 -- Lease of Shamlat Deh – Power of Gram Panchayat -- Though the Gram Panchayat has an able empowerment to lease the lands but the said empowerment is only when a public auction is conducted rather under the supervision of an Officer of the State Government -- Collector of the Revenue District directed to appoint SDM of the area to be the Officer, who shall conduct and supervise the public auction of the lands.

(Para 2-4)

A. Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 13B -- Finality of eviction – Execution -- Eviction order acquired a binding and a conclusive effect, inasmuch as, it remaining unappealed, before the learned competent appellate authority --  Order is required to be ensured to be forthwith fully executed by the learned Assistant Collector.

(Para 2)

B. Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 13B -- Eviction – Appeal -- Execution -- If the eviction order has yet not acquired any binding and a conclusive effect, inasmuch as, the aggrieved therefrom rearing an appeal thereagainst before the competent appellate authority, the learned Assistant Collector concerned may not draw any lawful order but may await a final and a conclusive decision being made thereon, by the competent appellate authority.

(Para 2)

A. Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 118, 121 -- Partition of land – Land abutting road -- It is settled law that land on the road should be divided amongst all the co-sharers in proportion to their share in the total land holding.

(Para 6)

B. Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 118, 121 -- Partition of land -- Sale/ Purchase of specific khasra number – Partition of land -- When a co-sharers alienates his share in a joint holding then he sells what he owns i.e., a joint undivided interest in the joint property thus, a sale mentioning specific khasra numbers/killa numbers forming part of a specific rectangle number but being a part of the joint khewat would be deemed to be a sale of a share from the joint khewat and the purchaser would be deemed to be a co-sharer in the entire joint khewat -- Purchaser cannot claim exclusive rights over the khasra numbers mentioned in his/her sale deed to the exclusion of the other co-sharers. Ram Chander’s case 2008(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 685 relied.

(Para 6, 7)

Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (20 of 1959), Section 13(2) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Creation of Sub-divisions in a district – Writ of mandamus -- Creation of a new sub-division is a considered policy decision of the State Government for good governance -- No mandamus can be issued directing the State Government to constitute new sub-division under Section 13(2) of the Code, 1959 -- Government is expected to act and must act in a way which would make it consistent with the good administration – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 7, 8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- Ad valorem court fee – Suit for damages -- No assessment of the damages given in the plaint -- In the heading as well as in the prayer clause, only a tentative amount has been mentioned -- In the plaint it has only been mentioned that the damages to the tune of at least Rs.5,00,000/- be awarded – Same being a totally vague statement cannot be treated as a quantification of the damages -- It is trite that the payment of ad valorem court fees is a matter between the plaintiff and the Court and the plaintiff-petitioner can be directed to pay the court fees as assessed after the relief is granted -- Tentative court fees affixed by the plaintiff-petitioner shall be accepted by the Court -- Exact amount of court fee payable shall be determined and paid at the time of passing of the decree.

(Para 7-9)

A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 11 – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 23A -- Gram Panchayat land -- Expiry of lease -- Eviction of lessee -- Jurisdiction to make an effective adjudication not vested in the authorities under the Act of 1948, but vested in the statutory authorities contemplated under the Act of 1961.

(Para 6)

B. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 11 – Gram Panchayat land -- Expiry of lease -- Status of the petitioner on the petition land was as a Chakotedar or tenant -- On expiry of the tenure of lease, he was amenable to be evicted from the panchayat land.

(Para 7)

A. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47-A -- Public auction – Market value of property – Additional stamp duty – Demand of -- Property sold by the Company Court in an open auction conducted by the Official Liquidator and the sale stands confirmed by High Court itself -- Registering authority is unjustified in demanding additional stamp duty -- Order impounding the sale deed set aside, sale deed directed to be released immediately, after its due registration.

(Para 13)

B. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47-A -- Constitution of India, Article 226 – Deficient stamp duty -- Additional stamp duty – Demand of -- Alternative remedy – Writ jurisdiction -- Objection as to availability of alternate remedy of appeal -- There is no specific bar to a writ court exercising its jurisdiction if alternate remedy has not been availed of – Objection held to be not tenable – Writ petition allowed.

(Para 15, 16)

Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 8(4) Proviso  -- Shamilat deh – Carving out plot – Allotment of plot to scheduled caste, backward class, landless labourers, tenant – Permissibility of –Exemption assigned in the proviso underneath sub-Rule (4) of Rule 8 cannot lead to any interpretation, that it yet assigns any leverage or privilege in the Gram Panchayat concerned, to even carve plots from gair mumkin gada khad, and, to thereafter make resolution for allotments thereof, in purported terms of the proviso to sub-Rule (4) of Rule 8 rather to any member of the scheduled caste or backward class or to any landless labourers or tenant.

(Para 5, 6)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7 -- Gair Mumkin Rasta -- Eviction by office order – Sustainability of -- Procedure established by law u/s 7 of the Act, 1961 not adopted – Appellate authority concurred similar vice of jurisdictional incapacity – Impugned orders quashed with a direction to the Sarpanch/ B.D.O. to forthwith institute a petition u/s 7 of the Act of 1961, before the ld. Collector and the Collector shall make a speaking decision after granting an opportunity of hearing to all affected concerned positively within 6 months.

(Para 3-6)

Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(iia) – Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16, 34 -- Shamilat deh  -- Cancellation of allotment -- Financial Commissioner assigned liberty to the Rehabilitation Department to access the Assistant Collector Ist Grade for attesting mutation in favour of the allottees subject to rider that compensation be made to Gram Panchayat -- Said compensation became deposited -- When all the statutory mandates complied, there was no occasion for the Assistant Collector Ist Grade to cancel the allotments in favour of the allottees nor was he empowered to mutate the petition lands, in favour of the Gram Panchayat – Mutations entered in favour of the Gram Panchayat cancelled and fresh mutations ordered to be attested by the Assistant Collector in favour of the allottees.

(Para 18-20)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7 -- Gair Mumkin Rasta -- Encroachment upon – Eviction from – Writ petition -- Petitioner made a complaint to competent authority -- BDPO directed for valid demarcation of the site and if some encroachments are noticed, he shall forthwith institute a petition u/s 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, before the learned Collector -- Upon receiving such a petition, the ld. Collector shall pass a speaking decision after hearing all affected persons within a period of 4 months.

(Para 2-5)

East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 18, 23-A – Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 13 -- Consolidation proceedings – Jumla Mustarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad -- Vesting of – Suit lands became reserved for the common purposes, of the panchayat deh for the benefit of the entire village proprietary body -- Finalized consolidation scheme remained unchallenged nor is challengeable at this belated stage -- Cultivating possession of such lands outside the domain of their permissible lawful title thereons – Held, petitioners do not hold any valid title thereto, either as owners or as individual cultivators.

(Para 4, 5)

A. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 18, 22, 23-A – Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(iii)(iv), 2(g)(6) (as amended by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992) – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(iii)(iv) -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953, (1 of 1954) -- Shamilat deh – Exclusion from -- Common purposes land -- Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hassab Rasad, Jumla Malkan – Vesting of -- Harmonious construction :

“Question : As to whether the verdict pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case “The State of Haryana through Secretary to Govt. of Haryana Vs. Jai Singh and Others”, verdict whereof, became rendered in Civil Appeal No.6990* of 2014, can be assigned retrospective effect, inasmuch as, even to those lands which were otherwise saved from vestment under the previous Acts respectively nomenclatured as “The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961” as well as “The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953”.

*State of Haryana Vs. Jai Singh and Others, 2022 AIR (SC ) 1718 = 2022(1) L.A.R. 1 = (2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16887

Held:

-- If the lands, ear-marked for ‘common purposes’ recorded as Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hassab Rasad, Jumla Malkan, were reserved by the Consolidation Officer for ‘common purposes’ u/s 18 of the 1948 Act, and if these lands did not revert back to the proprietors, before 11.02.1992, and the management and control thereof had already got vested in the Gram Panchayat u/s 23-A of the 1948 Act, then by virtue of Haryana Act 9 of 1992, the ownership and title of such lands gets vested in the Gram Panchayats.

-- where the lands which were at one point of time proposed to be meant for ‘common purposes’ at the time of consolidation or thereafter before 11.02.1992, rather were returned to the proprietors and were never reserved or ear-marked for common purposes, then such lands did not come under the management and control of the Gram Panchayats and ownership and title of such lands remained unaffected by Haryana Act 9 of 1992.

-- where the lands, though were kept for ‘common purposes’ under the Consolidation Scheme, but subsequently on account of any lis between the proprietors and the Gram panchayats, such lands had been partitioned amongst the proprietors and they continued to be recorded as owners in possession for decades, thus, also the management and control of such lands cannot be stated to have vested in the Gram Panchayat -- Clause (6) added by Haryana Act 9 of 1992 will remain inapplicable qua these lands also.

– lands which stood excluded from the definition of Shamlat Deh under the unamended Act i.e. Clause (iii) or (iv) of the Exclusion Clause contained in Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act, these factual issues can be determined only by a competent Court of jurisdiction.

-- if a proprietor is able to show that the land owned by him falls within any of these Exclusion Clauses, he is entitled to be protected from the wrath of the Haryana Act 9 of 1992 -- Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 does not erode the efficacy or workability of the relevant exclusionary clause(s).

-- executive fiat cannot be pressed into aid by the State to annul such judicial or quasi-judicial orders and to transfer ownership of lands with a stroke of pen after decades.

-- once a Consolidation Officer causes to prepare a new Record of Rights and pursuant thereto, entries in the revenue records are made, such entries shall carry a presumption of truth in respect of ownership and possessory rights of the land -- Such lands where ownership and possessory rights have been duly recorded u/s 22 of the Act, shall fall outside the purview of Section 18 read with Section 23-A of the 1948 Act and as a necessary corollary, these lands cannot be subject matter of inclusion of Shamlat Deh in Clause (6) of Section 2(g) of 1961 Act.

(Para 35-40)

B. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 18, 22, 23-A – Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(iii)(iv), 2(g)(6) (as amended by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992) – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(iii)(iv) -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953, (1 of 1954) -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 32 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 41 -- Shamilat deh – Exclusion from – Subsequent purchaser – Ostensible owner – Record of Rights prepared u/s Section 22 of the 1948 Act, read with Section 32 of 1887 Act were the bench-mark to determine whether the transferee or the subsequent vendee acted with due diligence -- After having verified that the vendor was recorded to be owner in possession of land for decades, such vendee entered into a bona-fide sale transaction, it shall get due protection of Section 41 of the Transfer of Properties Act -- The fact as to whether there was no due diligence or whether the transfer of title suffers from any type of imperfection, is an onus which lies on the Gram Panchayat or the Municipality, for which they are required to approach the Civil Court of appropriate jurisdiction.

(Para 43)

C East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 18, 22, 23-A – Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(iii)(iv), 2(g)(6) (as amended by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992), 5-B – Shamilat deh – Exclusion from -- Common purposes land -- Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hassab Rasad, Jumla Malkan – Sale transaction – Effect of :

Question : “whether in the wake of the assented to amendment, made by the Haryana State Legislative Assembly, wherethrough, Section 5-B became incorporated in the Haryana Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961, does or does not, cover the sale transaction which occurred prior thereto, and, especially when such issue was not under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jai Singh's case (Supra)*, besides especially also when it has not been assigned any retrospective effect.”

*State of Haryana Vs. Jai Singh and Others, 2022 AIR (SC ) 1718 = 2022(1) L.A.R. 1 = (2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16887

-- Section 5-B will be applicable only when it is proved before a competent court of law that the land was actually Shamlat Deh and hence the conveyance deed in relation thereto should be declared inoperative -- Determination of title of land as to whether or not it is Shamlat Deh through proceedings before a court of competent jurisdiction and in accordance with the principles of natural justice is a sine-qua-non for invoking the powers under Section 5-B of the 1961 Act.

(Para 45)

D. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) -- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 42-A (inserted vide Punjab Act No. 6 of 2007) – Shamilat deh – Common purpose land – Jai Singh's case* is equally binding on the State of Punjab, the mechanism to implement the said Judgment in both the States therefore, requires commonality -- Section 42-A of the 1948 Act provide that the land reserved for ‘common purposes’ whether specified in the Consolidation Scheme or not shall not be partitioned amongst the proprietors of the Village and it shall be utilized and continue to be utilized for ‘common purposes’ -- Above provision came to be inserted vide Punjab Act No. 6 of 2007 in the 1948 Act and has to apply prospectively -- Thus, the natural consequence thereof would be that the lands which already stand partitioned/re-distributed amongst the proprietors prior to Punjab Act No. 6 of 2007, would not get affected and the orders passed by competent Courts of Jurisdiction under which the said partition/re-distribution has been made, cannot be eroded through recourse to the said insertion.

*State of Haryana Vs. Jai Singh and Others, 2022 AIR (SC ) 1718 = 2022(1) L.A.R. 1 = (2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16887

(Para 48)

E. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 18, 22, 23-A, 42-A (inserted vide Punjab Act No. 6 of 2007) – Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(iii)(iv), 2(g)(6) (as amended by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992), 5-B – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(iii)(iv) -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953, (1 of 1954) -- Constitution of India, Article 31A, 300A -- Shamilat deh – Exclusion from -- Common purposes land -- Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hassab Rasad, Jumla Malkan – Vesting of –

(i) Executive Instructions dated 21.06.2022 and 18.08.2022 issued by the State of Haryana and dated 11.10.2022 issued by the State of Punjab whereby ownership rights of the lands in question are sought to be transferred in favour of the Gram Panchayat/Municipalities, through Executive fiat, are held to be contrary to the very scheme of the Statute and are hereby quashed, particularly in view of the fact that these executive instructions cannot result into arbitrary cancellation of valid title over the properties.

(ii) Accordingly, the States of Haryana as well as Punjab shall give effect to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jai Singh's case (supra)* in the following manner:-

*State of Haryana Vs. Jai Singh and Others, 2022 AIR (SC ) 1718 = 2022(1) L.A.R. 1 = (2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16887

(a) Where the lands continue to be shown as reserved for ‘common purposes’, whether utilized or unutilized, the ownership of such land shall vest in the Gram Panchayat or the Municipalities, as the case may be.

(b) However, if the lands which were proposed or shown to be reserved for common purposes have been partitioned, amongst the proprietors or redistributed amongst them, under the Consolidation Scheme, such lands are held to have never come under the management and control of the Gram Panchayats and, thus, ownership in relation thereto does not vest in the Gram Panchayats by virtue of the provisions, like Haryana Act 9 of 1992. Conspicuously, also given that the Punjab Act No. 6 of 2007 as relates to the 1948 Act, rather has only prospective effect, and, it does not erode the validly made orders either by the jurisdictionally competent Courts, and, or by the empowered revenue authorities whereby partitions and re-distribution of lands are made, may be even from the common pool.

(c) The Gram Panchayat or the Municipality shall be at liberty to approach the competent Court of law for vesting of ownership rights in them in respect of the lands where there is serious dispute as to whether the same had been reserved for common purposes and/or were never distributed/ returned amongst the proprietors through an order of a competent court or of any competent statutory authority.

(d) where there is no dispute in respect of lands reserved for common purposes and the management and control whereof had been transferred to the Gram Panchayat under Section 23-A of the 1948 Act, ownership of such lands shall vest in the Gram Panchayat/Municipality in view of the fact that provisions like Haryana Act 9 of 1992 have been declared intra vires by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jai Singh's Case;

(e) In the case of lands which at one point of time were shown or proposed to be reserved for common purposes but have been returned/ re-distributed amongst the proprietors under the orders of the Revenue Court/ Consolidation Officer and when ‘management’ or ‘control’ of lands was never transferred to the Gram Panchayats under Section 23-A of the 1948 Act, such lands also cannot be automatically presumed to have vested in Gram Panchayats or Municipalities;

(f) Where lands falling in the categories as illustrated in direction No.(b) and (e) above, have been sold/re-sold to bonafide purchasers after due diligence and for valuable consideration, the title or possessory rights of such bona-fide purchasers shall remain unaffected, save and except, when the sale deeds in their favour are set aside by the courts of competent jurisdiction.

Impugned notifications/instructions, as respectively made by the State of Haryana, and, by the State of Punjab, are to the extent that are militative, to the prospective assignments of force, by this court, to the Haryana Amending Act, 1992, the Punjab Amending Act, 2022, and, to the Punjab Act No. 6 of 2007, are quashed and set aside, on the above, and, the hereinafter mentioned five counts, and, shall henceforth have no force and operation.

i) They are in breach to the mandate of the judgment made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jai Singh's case (supra), whereby only a very limited retrospectivity is assigned to the amended provisions (supra).

ii) They are ultra vires the rules of natural justice.

iii) They are ultra vires the lawfully made assignment(s) to the assignees concerned, hence by any empowered revenue officer.

iv) That when they assign untenable retrospectivity, to the amended provisions, but yet they do not make any contemplations qua payments of compensation to the land owners concerned. Thus, they are quashed and set aside.

v) They are ultra vires the constitutional right of property, as enshrined in Article 31A, and, in Article 300 A of the Constitution of India.

(Para 50-51)

Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7(2) – Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 12 -- Gram Panchayat land -- Earmarked for School -- Encroachment upon -- There is no playground, school is surrounded by the unauthorized construction made by the original writ petitioners -- Unauthorized occupation and possession of the land, which is reserved for the school and the playground, cannot be directed to be legalized -- There cannot be any school without playground -- Even the students, who study in such a school are entitled to a good environment -- Held, High Court committed a very serious error in directing to legalise the unauthorized occupation and possession on payment of market price -- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside.

(Para 4, 5)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Eviction from shamilat deh – Writ of mandamus -- Mandamus cannot be made as yet the statutorily prescribed remedies are still available to become recoursed at the instance of BDPO or by the petitioner or at the instance of the Gram Panchayat, through the institution a petition u/s 7 of the PVCL Act, 1961 – Directions given that BDPO, does forthwith draw a petition u/s 7 of the Act, against the encroachers, upon the petition land(s) -- On such a motion being drawn, thereupon, a lawful order, positively within five months from its preferment, and, but after hearing all the affected persons be made.

(Para 1)

A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 11 -- Gair marusi – Right of ownership -- Gram Panchayat is recorded in the column of ownership and name of father of the petitioner recorded as Gair Marusi (A non-occupant tenant) in the column of cultivation -- A non-occupant tenant cannot acquire the status and rights of Marusi and claim ownership.

(Para 7)

B. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 7 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 -- Pleading in civil suit – Admission as Shamilat deh -- In suit plaintiff/ petitioner specifically pleaded that the suit land is Shamlat Deh, and, ejectment therefrom could only be ordered u/s 7 of the Act -- Now the petitioner cannot turn around, and, say that the suit land is not Shamlat Deh, rather, it is Nazul land.

(Para 9)

C. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) 13 -- Shamilat deh – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Civil court has no jurisdiction with regard to Shamlat land -- Therefore, any order passed by the civil court would be coram-nonjudice, thus a nullity.

(Para 9)

Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 5, 13, 15 -- Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 5 -- Exchange of shamilat land – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Word 'benefit of inhabitants of the village' does not mean for the benefit of one or two persons amongst the inhabitants, but is for the benefit of entire village proprietary body -- Further-more, there is no prior approval of the State Government enabling the Sarpanch to file written statement admitting the claim of private respondents -- Exchange is result of collusion between the office bearers of Gram Panchayat and the private respondents -- Even otherwise, there is a specific jurisdictional bar created in Section 13 of the Act of 1961 against the civil court to entertain such a claim -- Thus, the said civil suit was ill constituted besides the award as made thereon by the Daily Lok Adalat concerned, is also vitiated by the vice of jurisdictional incompetence -- Award is a nullity.

(Para 6-8)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Eviction of unauthorised occupant of shamilat deh – Writ jurisdiction -- Complaint before the Director, Rural Development & Panchayats Department regarding unauthorized possession of the Shamlat land with prayer for lawful proceedings under the relevant statute be drawn against the encroachers – Direction given that subject to lawful demarcations, the BDPO shall forthwith subsequent thereto draw proceedings under the relevant provisions of the relevant statute against the encroachers.

(Para 2-5)

A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(i), 4(3)(ii) -- Shamilat deh – Brani first -- Gair dakhilkar  -- Gair marusi -- Vesting in Panchayat – More than 12 years cultivable possession immediately preceding to the commencement of the Act  -- Ground of – Jamabandi of 1939-40, in ownership column-Shamlat deh, in cultivation column-name of the father of the petitioners as gair dakhilkar and in the column of area and kind of land, it is recorded as brani first – Simpliciter the “shamlat deh” as per Section 2(g)(i) falls in the inclusionary clause, brani first is non cultivatable land, petitioners cannot claim that their father was in cultivating possession in the year 1939-40 -- In the name of cultivator, name entered as gair marusi, meaning thereby he is 'non occupant tenant' -- Collective reading of the entries makes it clear that the land falls within the ambit of 'Shamlat Deh' – Contention that, by the dint of provisions of Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act, the land saved from vestment in the Panchayat, is not tenable.

(Para 7)

B. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(i), 4(3)(ii), 7, 11 – Shamilat deh – Vesting in Panchayat – Civil Court order – Effect of – Civil Court order that the father of the petitioners shown to have been in possession of the disputed land for more than 12 years and in view of Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act, the suit land does not vest with Panchayat – Held, this order is of no consequence, as it has not been passed by the competent authority exercising the powers under the Act because no petition has been filed either u/s 7 or 11 of the Act.

(Para 8)

C. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(i), 4(3)(ii) – Shamilat deh – Cultivation possession -- Banjar Kadim -- If a land remains uncultivated for a successive period of 8 harvest then the same is recorded as banjar kadim -- In the jamabandis for the year 1939-40 and 1943-44, the nature of the land is recorded as banjar kadim -- This dislodges the stand of the petitioners that they or their fore-fathers were in cultivating possession – Petitioners failed to prove that they were in cultivating possession of Shamlat Deh for more than 12 years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act, rather, the revenue records with which presumption of truth is attached speaks otherwise, and, the land clearly falls within the inclusionary clause of Shamlat Deh, and, therefore, by the dint of provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act, the land vests in the respondent-Gram Panchayat.

(Para 8)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 20, 208 – Suspension/ Removal of Sarpanch -- Illegal possession of shareaam raasta -- Legal notice by petitioner to various respondents – Since the power is vested with the Director to order an enquiry, thus, the Director Panchayat directed to look into the representation/ legal notice in accordance with law and in case he is of the opinion that any action is required to be taken with respect to the same, then the same would be taken, in accordance with law after following the principles of natural justice.

(Para 1-4)

Haryana Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 (9 of 2006), Section 11 – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 3(3), 49, 54 – Constitution of India, Article 265 -- Special Economic Zone – Exemption from stamp duty – Refund of stamp duty -- Stamp duty collected from respondent No.7 while registering the lease deed of plot situated in SEZ whereas charging of stamp duty in such a case is specifically exempted u/s 3(3) of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 11 of the SEZ Act – Held, and once the said instrument is exempted, charging of stamp duty for purposes of registration is without any authority of law and, therefore, would be violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India – Action of the respondents No.1 to 6 in charging of stamp duty and thereafter illegally retaining the same is contrary to the provisions of law -- In case the stamp duty is not refunded, said respondent is held entitled of the same along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date, the same was deposited till the said amount is refunded.

(Para 11-12)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7 -- Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 85, 108-A – Jurisdiction of  Punjab Waqf Board -- Mumkin Kabaristan -- Maqbooja Ahle Islam – Non-user by the Muslim community – Effect of -- Any entry in the revenue records declaring the land as Gair Mumkin Kabaristan and/or Maqbooja Ahle Islam, enjoys conclusivity, and, is required to be ensured to be protected even at the site concerned, despite evidence of prolonged non-user thereof by the Muslim community -- In the face of the said entry, the jurisdictional competence to try the lis is solitarily vested in the Punjab Wakf Board, and, is not vested in the authorities contemplated under the Punjab Act concerned -- Exercise of jurisdiction by the authorities concerned, under the Punjab Act, concerned, thus is completely void and nonest -- In consequence, the concurrently made orders by the statutory authorities contemplated under the Punjab Act held to be nonest, quashed and set aside.

(Para 38, 39)

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 78, 79 -- Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), Section 12-A -- Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 (6 of 1890), Section 2 -- Exemption of stamp duty/ registration charge to Charitable Trust -- Refund of stamp duty after sale deed – Jurisdiction of Sub-Registrar -- Stamp duty received contrary to the government instructions, the appellant being a Charitable institution would be entitled for the refund of the same -- Decision of the Sub-Registrar to reject the case on the ground that since the sale deeds had already been executed and therefore, it did not have the jurisdiction to refund the stamp duty cannot be sustained -- In the absence of any bar, no reason as to why the refund of stamp duty should not be granted -- Appellant to approach Sub-Registrar for fresh consideration seeking refund of stamp duty on its sale deeds.

(Para 9-15)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Illegal possession of Panchayat land – New ground at Appellate stage -- At the time of appointment it had not been brought to the notice of the Collector that respondent No. 4 was in illegal possession of the Panchayat land -- It is a settled principle of law that consideration has to be seen at the time of appointment -- At that point of time, on merits, respondent No. 4 was appointed by the District Collector – Divisional Commissioner set aside the order and appointed appellant as Lambardar inspite of his limited jurisdiction by giving preference for his personal opinion and not on account of the fact that there was an illegality in the order of the District Collector, which could be only the ground as such for interference -- Financial Commissioner, Revenue corrected the said error and hence, the ld. Single Judge has rightly upheld the order of the Financial Commissioner -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 2, 8-12)

Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 83, 85 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Waqf -- Waqf property – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- Jurisdiction to try and entertain suit in relation to determination of any dispute regarding Waqf and Waqf property would not vest in the Civil Court but in the Tribunal constituted under the Waqf Act, 1995.

(Para 8)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 149 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 4 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Delay in appeal – Condonation of delay – Insufficient funds for court fee – Ground of -- Application for condonation of delay dismissed as insufficient funds could not have been a sufficient ground for condonation of delay -- It would have been entirely a different matter had the appellant filed an appeal in terms of Section 149 CPC and thereafter removed the defects by paying deficit court fees.

(Para 9)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (8 of 1974), Section 2(4), 118 – Sale of agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh -- Private company is not an ‘agriculturist’ -- Approval was not given by the State Government and then the Company assigned his right to the plaintiff who thereafter filed the suit for specific performance -- No specific clause in the “Agreement to Sell”, which says that in case the purchaser fails to obtain required permission from the State Government, it could assign its rights to an agriculturist of Himachal Pradesh and the seller therefore would not have any objection in executing the Sale deed in favour of such an assignee -- No question of granting a decree of Specific Performance in favour of the plaintiff – Dismissal of suit upheld.

(Para 11-16)

C. Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (8 of 1974), Section 118 -- Sale of agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh -- Whole purpose of Section 118 of the 1972 Act is to protect agriculturists with small holdings -- Land in Himachal Pradesh cannot be transferred to a non-agriculturist, and this is with a purpose to save the small agricultural holding of poor persons and also to check the rampant conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes.

(Para 17)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 20, 208 -- Suspension and removal of a Panch/ Member Panchayat – Enquiry by Director Panchayat -- Illegal and unauthorized occupation of shamlat land – Director/Respondent No.2 directed to look into the representation and make necessary enquiry – In  case any action is required to be taken in the matter, then the same be done, in accordance with law and after giving the opportunity of hearing to respondents No.5 to 8.

(Para 1-4)

East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 42 – Consolidation proceedings – Dispute of rasta – Subsequent purchase of land – Easementary rights -- Jurisdiction of civil court -- Principles

(i) The jurisdiction vested in the authority concerned, is limited only to create a passage for exercising thereons of easementary rights by the land owners concerned, but if only such a passage is not carved by the consolidation authorities concerned.

(ii) in case there is any resistance or obstacles reared by any land owners concerned, against the exercising thereons of the easementary rights by the petitioner, thereupon, the competent authority can pass lawful order thereon.

(iii) In case, the petitioner intends to ensure his making accesses to all the corners of the land, as became purchased by him, thereupon, the remedy available for him was to, in the above regard, rear a civil suit against the Gram Panchayat concerned, before the Civil Court concerned, with the permissible relief, that on account of his making a prolonged user thereof or through custom, rather his perfecting his title over the dominant heritage, which otherwise, as above stated, is owned by the Gram Panchayat.

(Para 8)