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)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7 -- Panchayat  deh – Eviction petition – Locus Standi -- A private person had no locus standi -- Initially the Collector, and, the latter the appellate authority passed orders of eviction, is rather a curable infirmity -- Above infirmity can be cured, after quashing the impugned orders, through an order of remand upon the learned Collector, to make a fresh decision, in accordance with law only when the Gram Panchayat, passes a resolution authorizing the Sarpanch thereof, to institute an application for seeking the substitution of applicant by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat -- Collector after hearing all the affected concerned, shall make lawful orders upon the petition u/s 7 of the Act.

(Para 4-6)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 -- Partition of agricultural land -- Chapter IX of the Act, 1887 is a complete code governing the Partition of agricultural land -- Sanad takseem/instrument of partition is to be issued when the partition is complete.

(Para 5)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16, 121, 122  – Sanad takseem – Revision by subsequent purchaser – Amenability of -- Petitioners were not parties to the partition proceedings -- Partition attained finality with the issuance of the instrument of partition/sanad takseem -- Since the petitioners had no right in the land in question, their names did not figure in the sanad takseem – Petitioners-Subsequent purchaser stepped into the shoes of respondent No.6/ co-sharer after a period of more than 7 years from the issuance of the instrument of partition, have no locus standi to challenge the partition proceedings including the instrument of partition/sanad takseem – Revision petition is completely misconceived.

(Para 6)

C. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 121, 122  – Sanad takseem – Warrant of possession after three years -- Ground that warrant of possession cannot be issued after a period of three years from the date of the instrument of partition is completely misconceived.

(Para 8)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7 -- Panchayat  deh – Eviction petition by Sarpanch – Sarpanch himself encroacher of land – Effect of – Petition in respect of those tracts of land, whereons no encroachment is made, at the instance of co-respondent No.7/ Sarpanch, renders the petition by the said Sarpanch well constituted – If after demarcations land owned by the Panchayat Deh found to be encroached by Sarpanch, the Panchayat, shall make a resolution, whereby it shall not authorize the above Sarpanch, to institute a petition u/s 7 of the Act, but shall authorize some other Panch to institute petition.

(Para 5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Application after cut-off date – Fresh munadi -- Issue of validity of candidature was also subject matter before the Collector in appeal -- However, no order was passed on the same and the case was decided on merits considering the qualifications of both the candidates -- Financial Commissioner set aside appointment and order for fresh munadi – Ld. Single Judge declined to interfere -- Order of the F.C and the ld. Single Judge do not suffer from any infirmity, appeal dismissed.

(Para 1, 5-8)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Limitation for mutation -- Section 34 of the Act, 1887 stipulates that the Patwari shall enter in his register of mutations every report made to him of any person acquiring rights or title in any property of the concerned revenue estate by virtue of inheritance, purchase, mortgage or otherwise and a report regarding the same has been made to him -- Same action can be taken suo moto also on acquiring knowledge -- He is also required to enquire into the correctness of entries in the register of mutations and make such order as thought fit with respect to the entry in the annual record of rights -- It is, thus, evident that no limitation has been prescribed for making an entry in the register of mutation -- Thus, the argument of limitation is liable to be rejected outright.

(Para 6)

B. Pepsu Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1954 (18 of 1954), Section 2(h) -- Occupancy tenant -- Nothing on record to show that the petitioner was recorded as occupancy tenant at the time of commencement of the Act nor is there any decree or order of any Court or authority of competent jurisdiction granting him the right of occupancy -- Thus, the petitioner is not governed by the definition and cannot claim to possess the status of an occupancy tenant by operation of law.

(Para 10)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16(1), 121 – Sanad taksim – Revision – Maintainability of -- Argument that once sanad taksim has been prepared, the revenue authorities had no right to interfere in the proceedings deserves to be rejected – Financial Commissioner has the power to consider the legality of an order passed by a revenue officer in partition proceeding even after the sanad takseem has been prepared.

(Para 6)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 -- Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Mutation -- Long pendency of revision/ Stay – Writ jurisdiction -- Rejection of application for additional evidence by Collector in appeal -- Revision petition filed before the Financial Commissioner on 08.08.2022 but has not been taken up for consideration till date, next date of hearing is 07.02.2023 – Meanwhile, the Collector is due to pass an order on the appeal on 27.12.2022 – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the Financial Commissioner to take up the pending revision petition on 07.02.2023 alongwith the stay application and till the decision of the stay application the Collector shall not pass the final order.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Single candidate  -- Fresh munadi -- Being the sole candidate, the petitioner’s name was recommended by the Assistant Collector, and Sub-Divisional Officer (C) -- However, the Collector ordered a fresh munadi as two additional applications were received after the cut-off date – Held, in such a situation, it would be the discretion of the Collector either to appoint him or to order a fresh munadi -- Collector has chosen the latter option and the said action cannot be said to be perverse.

(Para 1-3)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 3-C (Punjab) – Exemption from stamp duty -- Family transfer of agriculture land – Father to son – 3% additional stamp duty imposed – Exemption claimed by virtue of notification dated 21.12.2021 issued by Government of Punjab, stating that the stamp duty upon transfer of agricultural land, rural residential property to his Class-I heirs, during his lifetime, would be exempt – As the transfer deed had been executed by the father of the petitioner in the name of the petitioner pertaining to agricultural land, it would be exempt from additional stamp duty -- Impugned orders imposing the additional stamp duty are unsustainable -- Petition allowed, impugned orders set aside.

(Para 1-8)

Punjab State Cooperative Financing Institutions Service Rules, 1958, Rule 5(v), 6 – Cooperative Bank employee -- Wife and father of employee appointed as Directors – Deemed removal – Notice to petitioner/ employee necessary -- In terms of the Clause 6 the petitioner would have been removed from service on the same day as information was received that the employee had relatives as members of the board, but this removal would have come into effect only after due intimation to the petitioner -- This was never done and in the meantime the term of the Board of Members expired and an Administrator appointed -- Without issuing notice to the petitioner about his family members being members of the Board of Director, the orders terminating the services of the petitioner are not sustainable -- Writ allowed, impugned orders vide which the petitioner was removed from service, set aside -- Official respondents directed to take the petitioner back in service and grant him all the consequential financial benefits, as admissible under the rules.

(Para 8-10)

A. Punjab Land Records Manual, Para 9.9 -- Jamabandi entry – Change in -- Land in question earmarked for Bazigar community -- Jamabandi for the year 1966-1967, reflected it as “Gair Mumkin Ababdi Makbooja Bazigar” -- Same entry in the jamabandi for the year 1986-1987 – Later in jamabandi for the year 2006-07, without there being any order passed by any of the competent authority/Court, the said entry has been changed to “Gair Mumkin Plot” -- Para 9.9 of the Punjab Land Records Manual that enjoins the revenue authorities to issue notice to all concerned before carrying out any change in the revenue entries -- Change made in the revenue entries in favour of Gram Panchayat was bad in law being in violation of the procedure laid down under Para 9.9 of the Punjab Land Records Manual of granting opportunity or putting to notice to all concerned and affected.

(Para 9, 10)

B. Punjab Land Records Manual, Para 9.9 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Jurisdiction of the Civil Court -- Once the change in entries from “Gair Mumkin Abadi Makbooja” to “Gair Mumkin Plot” have been found to be illegal and bad in law being in violation of the procedure laid down for the said purpose, no question of title was involved in the dispute, thereby creating a bar of jurisdiction with the civil Court -- Once respondents No.1 to 7 have been proved and found to be members of Bazigar community, there was no legal impediment for them to have filed suit for possession regarding the property earmarked for the common purposes of benefit of their entire community.

(Para 11-13)

Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (29 of 1974), Section 24, 25 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Preventing injunction for usage of water-course -- Suit for permanent injunction – Jurisdiction of civil Court – Rejection of plaint -- Section 24 of the Act, 1974 deals with restoration of demolished or altered etc. water courses -- As per case of the plaintiff, defendants have not actually demolished or altered the water course, rather they are threatening to do so and preventing the plaintiff from using the water course -- The canal authorities have no power to issue an injunction order – It cannot be said that the plaint deserves to be rejected since jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and try the suit is barred – Application for rejection of plaint rightly dismissed by the trial court.

(Para 6, 7)

Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 2(5-a) -- Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 8(1)(b), (3), 33(2) -- Surplus land – Right of purchaser during the pendency  of surplus proceedings -- Land declared surplus under 1953 Act on 28.07.1960 -- In writ appropriate authorities were directed to re-decide the surplus area case -- Meanwhile, the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 came into force -- Surplus area case was still pending, sale deed dated 22.02.1971 was executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of 37 K, 10 M of land -- Finally, surplus area decided on 12.05.1978 and land sold to the petitioner was included therein – Petitioner urged that he was an old tenant since 1910 through his predecessor-in-interest and thus, entitled to be heard before passing of the order of declaration of surplus area and being bonafide purchaser was entitled to benefit of Sections 8(1)(b) and 8(3) of 1972 Act – Held, sub-section (2) of section 33 provides that in case of surplus proceedings pending before the commencement of 1972 Act, they shall be decided under the statute under which they were initiated – Held, petitioner was not entitled to grant of any opportunity of hearing while deciding the surplus area case -- Accordingly, order dated 12.05.1978 cannot be said to be void. Kirpal Singh’s case, 2020(1) L.A.R. 150 = (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14968 relied.

(Para 2-11)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16, 116, 121 – Mode of partition -- Ex-parte sanad takseem – Setting aside of -- Financial Commissioner set aside the sanad on the ground of violation of mode of partition – High value land given to the petitioner and this violates the mode of partition which specifically provides that there should be equitable partition -- Mode of partition clearly states that while partitioning the land, frontage on the road shall be kept in mind -- This implies that land of equal value must be equitably partitioned – Writ challenging F.C. order dismissed.

(Para 5-7)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 15, 121 -- Sanad takseem – Long pendency of revision/ stay application -- Revision pending before Financial Commissioner challenging the sanad issued since 2020, same has not even been taken for preliminary hearing till date – Petition disposed of with a direction to the Financial Commissioner to take up pending revision petition on 16.12.2022 along with the stay application -- Till the decision of the stay application, status quo regarding possession as it exists today shall be maintained.

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Acquittal in criminal case -- 5th respondent was the choice of the Collector -- Criminal case was registered against respondent no. 5 on the allegation of having interfered with the duties of a public servant -- Police could not substantiate the allegations in the investigation and, thus, filed an untraced report -- It cannot be said that a stigma was cast on the character of the 5th respondent -- Possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out especially during elections – Thus, the appellate Court was not justified in interfering with the order of the Collector -- Interference made has been corrected by the Financial Commissioner – Writ challenging appointment of respondent no. 5 as Lambardar dismissed.

(Para 4)

Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978, Rule 77 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Election of Councilor – Challenge to -- Election petition – Non-deposit of fees of Rs.250/- -- Rejection of plaint -- Ld. Trial court allowed the respondent No.1/ plaintiff to deposit the mandatory fee/costs for the purposes of filing of the election petition and application for rejection of plaint dismissed --  Held, there is a provision of depositing two thousand rupees as security u/s 117 of the Act of 1951, similar to the provision of Rule 77 of the Election Rules, 1978 – Supreme Court in Charan Lal Sahu’ case 1973 (2) SCC 530 held that non-deposit of the security along with the election petition as required u/s 117 of the Act of 1951 leaves no option to the Court but to reject it -- Impugned order set aside and the election petition filed by respondent No.1/ plaintiff stands rejected.

(Para 1-15)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Acquittal in criminal case -- Petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by the Collector -- Financial Commissioner set aside his appointment inter alia on the ground of being involved in a criminal case – Held, being involved in a case under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 creates a doubt about the character of the petitioner and the same should have been kept in view while deciding the case of the lambardari -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (31 of 1973), Section 5 – Execution of order – Power of Executing Court -- Eviction allowed, appeal dismissed, writ petition also dismissed – SDM dismissed the execution by holding that respondents have purchased the property from Municipal Council and the sale deed in their favour has never been challenged by the Market Committee -- Reliance has also been placed on a report to the effect that the property in dispute is located outside the revenue limits of the grain market – Held, executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree -- Reliance on the report is wholly misplaced because the report submitted on the administrative side cannot overrule the orders passed by the courts in exercise of their judicial powers – Order set aside – SDM directed to take immediate steps for the delivery of possession.

(Para 6-13)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Acquittal in FIR case -- Collector refused  to appoint the petitioner as Lambardar by saying even though he had been acquitted, stigma remained on his character – Judgment of acquittal shows that there appeared to be a fight between two factions in the village resulting in the registration of FIR -- Petitioner was not named therein and was summoned as an accused at a later stage -- Prosecution could not identify the accused -- Thus, all of them were acquitted – Held, allegations in the criminal case did not reflect upon the character of the petitioner and to hold to the contrary is a perversity -- Writ petition allowed, impugned orders set aside, matter remanded to the Collector for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner.

(Para 1-5)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Sanad takseem – Revisional power -- Amendment dated 10.04.2017 would apply prospectively and would govern only those cases in which partition application was instituted after the said date -- Post-amendment, only the Commissioner exercises revisional jurisdiction and the Financial Commissioner has been deprived of the said power – Partition application was filed on 25.03.2011 i.e. prior to the enactment of the amending Act No.12 of 2017 and thus, the sanad could only be challenged before the Financial Commissioner -- Proceedings initiated before the Commissioner were patently without jurisdiction -- Said proceedings rightly set aside by the Financial Commissioner.

(Para 10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 26 -- Allotment of land – Jurisdiction of civil court – Rejection of plaint -- Suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs are owners in possession of the land as described in the head note of the plaint read with allotment letter dated 7.1.1986 – Allotment under letter dated 7.1.1986 is pending challenge by way of ROR before the Financial Commissioner wherein implementation of the order has also been stayed, yet, petitioner’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 has been dismissed – In view of Section 26 of the 1972 Act, jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred -- Revision petition allowed, impugned order set aside and application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of plaint allowed.

(Para 2-8)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Ex-parte civil court decree -- On the basis of Civil Court decree, the mutation reversed – Petitioner submitted that he was wrongly proceeded against ex parte, an application for setting aside the ex parte decree has been filed, the revenue authorities should not have reversed the mutation – Held, submission is misconceived, if the ex parte judgment and decree is set aside and an order is passed in favour of the petitioner, the mutation entry will again be reversed -- Revenue authorities cannot sit in judgment over orders passed by the Civil Court -- No interference is called for, writ petition dismissed.

(Para 1-3)

Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 18(6) -- Haryana Utilization of Surplus and other Areas Scheme, 1976, Clause 9,10,11 – Allotment of surplus land – Non-payment of timely installment – Effect of -- Land allotted being a landless person on 03.12.1976, consideration was payable in ten equal annual instalments -- The first instalment was deposited on 14.03.1977 well within time -- The remaining instalments were delayed and were deposited in a lumpsum on 23.01.2008 i.e. after more than 28 years – Held, delay in deposit of instalments would not deprive the allottee of his right to allotment as a landless person -- The only remedy available to the State is to recover the instalments as arrears of land revenue -- Arrears have already been deposited in lumpsum and no recovery is to be effected – Financial Commissioner held in favour of land owner – Writ against that dismissed. Parmeshwari @ Panmeshwari’s case CWP No.4418 of 2021, decided on 19.04.2022 = 2022(1) L.A.R. 336 = (2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16678 relied.

(Para 2-4)

Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (8 of 1873), Section 30A, 30B, 30C – Change of water outlet -- Distance of the watercourse through which the water has to travel to reach the land of the appellants is 1.3 kilometers -- It has come on record that the watercourse is not being properly maintained by the co-sharers – Responsibility and duty which has been cast under the Canal and Drainage Act upon the co-sharer – The inaction on the part of the co-sharers cannot in itself be a ground for changing the outlet for irrigation purposes.

(Para 4)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 44 -- Jamabandi – Presumption of -- Jamabandi is not a document of title and is mainly prepared for fiscal purposes to determine the liability of payment of land revenue, whereas the sale deed is a document of title -- In case of any conflict, the sale deed is to take precedence, the sale deed is to be relied upon and not the entries in the jamabandi.

(Para 11)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 15, 16 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Appointing authority for Lambardar – Power of Appellate/ Revisional authority -- Powers for appointment of a Lambardar have been conferred upon the Collector alone and not on the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority -- Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority has the jurisdiction and power to set aside such appointment of the Lambardar by the Collector, however, the competent authority for appointing a Lambardar is none other than the Collector -- Matter thus has to be remanded back to the Collector for fresh consideration of the candidature of the eligible applicants for the post of Lambardar, who were available at the time of consideration.

(Para 5)

Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984), Section 27 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Society laws -- Appointment of Chowkidar – Appointment made without advertisement -- Merely because approval has been granted to the appointment by the Assistant Registrar cannot justify an appointment which had been carried without notice to the public at large – By impugned order appointment set aside -- No merit in petition warranting interference – Petition dismissed.

(Para 4, 5)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 8, 11 –Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 – Civil suit -- Application for referring the matter to Arbitrator -- The provisions of Sections 8 and 11 of the Act are complementary to each other and there is no bar to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 11 (6) of the Act during pendency of the application u/s 8 of the Act.

(Para 3)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11(6) -- Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 16, 69-A -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 89 – Civil suit -- Settlement to refer the matter to Arbitrator-- Refund of court fees -- Refund of Court fee cannot be denied merely because the matter has not been settled before the Lok Adalat – Liberty granted to approach the trial Court for refund of the court fee in question and for availing the benefit under the Court Fee Act.

(Para 4-8)