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)

A. Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973, Rule 20 -- Cancellation of allotment of plot -- Affidavit of not owning of any other plot or dwelling unit -- Petitioner allotted a dwelling unit after her declaration to the Society -- No valid ground to cancel her allotment.

(Para 12)

B. Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952), Section 8-A -- Chandigarh Leasehold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973, Rule 20 -- Power of attorney – Cancellation of allotment of plot – Transferring the lease hold rights in the property to attorney before the expiry of 15 years in violation of the condition no. 15 of the allotment letter -- Petitioner denied such transfer to her attorney -- She asserted that she was settled in USA and therefore, she had executed a power of attorney in favour of her friend for the proper management of the site/unit – No registered assignment of lease hold rights in favour of her attorney on record -- In the absence thereof it is difficult to come to a conclusion about the factum of transfer -- Cancellation order was passed more than twenty eight years after the allotment -- Cancellation on this ground would not be justified -- Petition allowed, impugned orders quashed.

(Para 13, 14)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Title dispute -- Vacation of interim relief – Writ jurisdiction -- No reason recorded, which called for vacation of interim relief by ADC -- Writ petition disposed of with the direction that petition u/s 11 of the PVCL Act filed by the petitioners be finally decided by the ADC within a period of three months -- Till then, status quo with regard to possession maintained.

(Para 3-6)

A. Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 7 -- Shamilat deh – Eviction of unauthorised occupant – Destructive stands -- Two stands are mutually destructive inasmuch as, on one hand, the petitioner is claiming ownership of the land in question and at the same time, he is seeking protection of his possession as a “tenant” -- Mutually destructive stands are not permissible in law.

(Para 16)

B. Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 7 – Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 19 -- Shamilat deh – Vesting of -- No document to substantiate plea that petitioner is a tenant under the Gram Panchayat – Still further, petitioner has not challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, findings have been returned that though the suit property is the ownership of the Gram Panchayat but the same is possessed by the plaintiff -- In view of the facts & circumstances and also the provisions contained in Section 7 read with Section 2(g) of the Act, 1961 and Rule 19 of the Rules, 1964; the land in dispute vests with the Gram Panchayat.

(Para 17-21)

C. Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) – Shamilat deh -- Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hassab Rasad -- Jumla Malkan -- Mushtarka Malkan – Explanation appended to sub Section 6 of Section 2(g) of the Act, 1961 clearly states that the lands entered in the column of ownership of record of rights as “Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hassab Rasad”, “Jumla Malkan” or “Mushtarka Malkan” shall be shamilat deh within the meaning of this section.

(Para 22)

D. Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 7 -- Shamilat deh -- Eviction proceedings – Res-judicata -- It is well settled that the proceedings u/s 7 of the Act, 1961 are summary in nature and the principles of res judicata are not attracted thereto.

(Para 25)

E. Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7(2) – Shamilat deh – Eviction of Unauthorised occupant – Penalty -- Since the petitioner had continued in illegal and unauthorised possession of the land in dispute measuring198 Kanals - 2 Marlas, the penalty @ 1% of the Collector rate of the land per acre per annum, as provided under Section 7(2) of the Act, 1961, upon the petitioner imposed w.e.f. the date of filing of the eviction petition up to the date of taking over the possession of the land in dispute from the petitioner -- DDPO to determine the total amount of penalty in terms of Section 7(2) of the Act, 1961 and shall ensure that the said penalty amount does not exceed 10% of the current Collector rate on the date when the said amount is deposited in terms of Section 7(2) of the Act, 1961.

(Para 34-36)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11, 13 -- Gram Panchayat Deh – Shamilat deh – Ownership dispute – Jurisdiction of civil court – Rejection of plaint -- Suit to declare the plaintiff owner in possession by way of adverse possession – Civil Court refused to reject the plaint on the ground that the property is not a shamilat deh land – Held, the question as to whether the suit property is or is not shamilat deh is required to be decided by the Collector and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been specifically excluded -- Plaintiff claims that he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession -- Such a question exclusively falls within the domain of the Collector empowered under Section 11 of the 1961 Act -- Revision petition allowed, order passed by the trial Court set aside being unsustainable -- Plaint shall stand rejected -- However, the plaintiff shall have the liberty to file proceedings under Section 11 of the 1961 Act.

(Para 3-9)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Collusive proclamation – Writ jurisdiction -- Merely because one of the applicants was the father of the petitioner collusion cannot be inferred -- Two other candidates had also applied and there is no evidence that either of them was closely related to the petitioner – Petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by Collector, upset by Commissioner and Financial Commissioner – Writ allowed, impugned orders set quashed and appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar is upheld.

(Para 2-5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 111 – Partition of land in different khewats -- Clubbing of applications for partition -- Assistant Collector dismissed the application for clubbing  by concluding that some of the co-owners in the various khewats are different and not common, therefore, the various partition applications cannot be clubbed together – Held,

-- While partitioning the agricultural land, the competent officer is required to ensure that a particular co-sharer is allocated a compact parcel of land in order to enable them to utilize the land economically.

-- Fragmentation of land holdings of an agriculturalist in different parcels which are separately located is never in the benefit of a farmer.

-- It becomes difficult to cultivate the agricultural land if it is located in small parcels in a fragmented manner. State of Punjab has already enacted the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, in order to consolidate the land holdings of the farmers.

Order of Assistant Collector 1st Grade’s order set aside, Assistant Collector First Grade requested to consolidate all the three different applications, for the partition of land after grant an opportunity of hearing to all the co-sharers of all the three khewats before partitioning the property.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 13-B -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 45 – Mutation entry – Challenge to -- Jurisdiction of civil Court -- Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act shall be applicable only in a case where the plaintiff wants to protect his possession on the basis of his name in the mutation record and/or revenue record -- However, any dispute with respect to mutation entry can only be before the revenue authorities only -- Suit before the Civil Court challenging the mutation entry was not maintainable at all and there was a bar of filing the civil suit.

(Para 3-7)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Multiple cause of action – Civil suit – Limitation -- Suit can be filed within three years from the accrual of the initial cause of action, however, any successive violation of rights after institution of the suit would not give fresh cause of action to file a suit -- If the suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation would commence from the date when the right to sue first accrued.

(Para 13)

B. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 44 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 – Consolidation proceedings -- Jurisdiction of civil court -- Consolidation Authorities allotted 15 kanal 5 marla land of lesser value to the defendant as per his entitlement in lieu of 7 kanal 12 marla of standard land during consolidation -- Plaintiff till date has not challenged the order of Consolidation Authorities -- In case, the plaintiff was aggrieved by any such order, he should have challenged it before the authorities empowered under the Consolidation Act, which admittedly was not done -- Jurisdiction of the Civil Court barred -- Civil Court cannot derive jurisdiction beyond the statute by merely giving it a colour for a suit of declaration.

(Para 15)

C. Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34, 44 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Mutation – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- Mutation is only entered to update the revenue records and it not being a document of title does not confer any right on any person whatsoever -- Correctness of mutation cannot be challenged by plaintiff in a civil suit.

(Para 16)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 -- Maintainability of suit for simplicitor declaration -- If the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land, he cannot file a simpliciter suit for declaration and injunction without claiming possession thereof.

(Para 20)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Letters Patent Appeal -- Appointment of Lambardar -- No disqualification assigned to appointment of respondent No. 5 -- Appellant is more meritorious on all aspects including education, land as also the standing that itself would not be a ground for setting aside the appointment of respondent No. 5 when there is no illegality in the process of appointment.

(Para 6)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Letters Patent Appeal -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Hereditary claim – Comparative merit, apart from the other characteristics of a person, has been taken note of by the Collector while assessing the comparative status of the candidates while making an appointment -- Hereditary aspect, was not the sole consideration, appointed candidate had been helping his uncle in performing the duties of the Lambardar and, therefore, would be conversant with the procedure – All the revenue authorities found the appointment in accordance with law – Held, comparative merit cannot be assessed by the Court nor can the Court act as an appellate authority – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 7-9)

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (XLI of 1966), Section 40 -- Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971, Rule 10(1) – Transfer of Flat -- No Objection Certificate from the Collector – Requirement of -- Land in question allotted to the builder who had participated in the bid in response to a public notice -- Said builder was required to construct the building on the said land costing not less than Rs.10 lakhs and to sell the same for the purpose of private residence -- It is after the said builder sold the flats to the individual buyers, they formed a Co-operative Society in the year 1977 in which Society the ownership of the land came to be transferred by the said builder – It is not a case where the land is allotted to a Co-operative Society by the Government -- Held, since the land was not allotted to a society but to a builder on lease, who has constructed flats for private individuals, who have subsequently formed a Co-operative Society, the 1983 Resolution and 1999 Resolution would not be applicable to the members of such a society.

(Para 13-15)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Acquittal in criminal case -- Merely because there has been an acquittal in the criminal matter, it does not give a clean chit to the appellant -- Registration of case in itself cannot be a ground for not considering the case of the appellant especially when he has been acquitted prior to the date of appointment -- What is required to be taken note of by the Collector is the effect of such a case having been registered and the resultant acquittal thereof.

(Para 7)

Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 5-A, 5-B – Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, Rule 3(2)(ii), 12 – Shamilat deh -- Sale of land for plantation purpose to PWD (B&R) – Permissibility of -- Although the change of user of shamlat deh land is permissible for plantation purposes but such permissible user can be effected either by the Gram Panchayat at its own level or through another as envisaged under Rule 3 of Rules, 1964 -- However, sale of land by Panchayat in favour of any Government Department for “plantation” would not fall within the parameters envisaged under Section 5B of the Act, 1961 read with Rule 12 of the Rules, 1964 as applicable to the State of Haryana – Held such sale was not permissible.

(Para 14-19)

A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 11 – Shamilat deh – Eviction petition – Title dispute – Scope of summary proceedings -- Parties had raised question of title and the ld. Collector and the ld. Appellate Authority decided the matter in an exceptional hurry, without even granting proper opportunity to both the parties to place on record to their respective evidence before the same -- In such cases, the effective recourse for the Collector would have been to undertake such an exercise by expanding the scope of proceedings from Section 7 to Section 11 of the Act as the eviction proceedings under Section 7 of the Act are summary in nature and such summary proceedings can cause prejudice to either party.

(Para 13)

B. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 7 -- Abadi deh – Exclusive use as abadi deh – Common purposes usage -- Shamilat deh -- Eviction petition – Maintainability of – It was to be seen as to whether the land was exclusively used as 'Abadi Deh', then it would not have been included in the 'Shamlat Deh' and the petition u/s 7 of the Act on behalf of Gram Panchayat in respect of such land would not have been maintainable -- If the land fell within 'Abadi Deh' and was used or reserved for the benefit of village community including the pond, then it would be included in the definition of 'Shamlat Deh' and the Gram Panchayat would be entitled to maintain a petition u/s 7 of the Act.

(Para 14)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Criminal case against candidates – Non-consideration by Collector – This would be a relevant consideration which has been kept open for the Collector to go into and form his own opinion – Remand order upheld.

(Para 1-4)

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 4(2) – Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (8 of 1954), Section 50(a) – Constitution of India, Article 254 – Challenge to Section 50(a) of Delhi Reforms Act, 1954 – Repugnancy in two Acts -- Concurrent list III -- Question of repugnancy would not come into existence unless it is first established that both enactments are under the Concurrent list (List III) – 1954 Act is not referable to any matter enumerated in List III but it is referable to Entry 18 of List II -- Thus, no question of repugnancy would arise in view of Article 254 of the Constitution.

(Para 18, 19)

B. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 4(2) – General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), Section 6(b) (c) -- Repeal of Section 4(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Prospective effect -- Deletion of Section 4(2) took place w.e.f 09.09.2005 therefore, the effect of the deletion can only be in respect of successions which opened on or after 09.09.2005 -- This is because under Section 6(b) and 6(c) of the General Clauses Act repeal cannot affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed and cannot affect any right which may have been acquired or accrued.

(Para 23-25)

C. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 4(2) – Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (8 of 1954), Section 50(a) – Repeal of Section 4(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 w.e.f. 09.09.2005 – Prospective effect -- Property in question is agricultural property, and therefore, in 1997 on death, the devolution of interest (inheritance) would be determinable on the said date, in accordance with the law existing at that time -- Subsequent deletion would not have any impact on the rights of inheritance, which had already accrued and crystallised, prior to the amendment -- Even existence of Section 4(2) in the 1956 Act and its deletion will not have any impact for the reason that the 1954 Act, is a special law, dealing with fragmentation, ceiling, and devolution of tenancy rights over agricultural holdings only, whereas the 1956 Act is a general law, providing for succession to a Hindu by religion as stated in Section 2 thereof -- Existence or absence of Section 4(2) in the 1956 Act would be immaterial.

(Para 21-26)

D. Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (8 of 1954), Section 50(a) – Constitution of India, Article 14, 15, 21, 254 – Challenge to Section 50(a) of Delhi Reforms Act, 1954 -- Gender bias/ women empowerment  -- There can be no challenge to the 1954 Act as the said legislation is included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India.

(Para 28)

E. Amendment in statute -- Prospective effect -- It is well settled that all amendments are deemed to apply prospectively unless expressly specified to apply retrospectively or intended to have been done so by the legislature.

(Para 23)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984), Section 102, 128 – Jurisdiction of civil Court – Rejection of plaint -- Question of law is whether in view of Section 102 read with Section 128 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies  Act, 1984, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred? – Prayer is to grant a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 to hand over the complete documents with a consequential relief of declaration that conveyance deed in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 is illegal and liable to be set aside.

-- Though the trial Court allowed the application, however, the lower appellate Court recorded a finding that since in the civil suit, there is pleading of fraud with regard to execution of the conveyance deed, on the basis of certain documents, which were prepared by the defendants in collusion with each other, therefore, the Civil Court will have jurisdiction and the plaint is not liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

-- The lower appellate Court also recorded a finding that Section 102 read with Sections 128 & 130 of the Act deals with reference of the dispute to an Arbitrator and regarding bar of jurisdiction of the Courts, however, nothing is stated under Section 128 of the Act that jurisdiction of the Civil Court will be barred, if a suit is filed on the basis of fraud.

-- At the stage of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court is primarily to see the pleadings in the plaint or the documents attached with the plaint.

In the plaint, it is specifically pleaded that conveyance deed has been executed in favour of defendant No.2 by playing fraud -- Therefore, question of law decided in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff -- No illegality or infirmity with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court.

(Para 2-8)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 200(1) – Panchayat matter -- Appointment of Administrator – Challenge to -- Within the time prescribed, the Gram Panchayat was unable to pass a resolution for carrying out the development works -- One of the Panches defected to the other side and because of this quorum was incomplete -- No resolution could have been passed for executing the development works – DDPO was justified in passing an order of appointment of Administrator – Writ dismissed

(Para 3, 4)

Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 66 -- Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, Rule 33 -- Election of Panch – Recounting of Votes -- As per the election petitioner (respondent No.4) four votes were wrongly rejected, whereas as per the petitioner (respondent in the election petition) only two votes were rejected -- There is no clarity from the order as to how many votes were in fact rejected -- Order set aside leaving it open to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Election Tribunal, to pass a fresh order within 15 days on the issue of recounting of votes.

(Para 2-6)

Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 66 -- Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, Rule 33 -- Election of Sarpanch -- Re-counting of votes – Non-speaking order -- Order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Election Tribunal, ordering re-count of the votes for the post of Sarpanch cannot sustain, as the said order is a non-speaking one without considering and detailing the reasons and the evidence on which it is based -- Order, set aside and direction issued to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Election Tribunal, to re-consider the matter and pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law within a period of 15 days -- Writ petition allowed.

(Para 4-6)

Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 9(1)(i) – Ejectment of tenant -- A big land owner (owner owning land in excess of the permissible area) and every tenant holding land in excess of the permissible area was duty bound to furnish a declaration disclosing the extent of the land owned by him -- No such duty has been cast upon a small land owner (person holding land less than the permissible area) -- Thus, the submission that a small land owner was required to get a declaration to this effect is illogical – Held, a small land owner is not required in law to approach the concerned authorities for such a declaration – Petitioners/tenants could also have produced proof by way of revenue record to establish that respondent No. 5 was a big land owner but nothing of the kind was done -- Petitioners cannot escape eviction.

(Para 6-8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 121, 158 -- Partition of land – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Bar of Section 158 of the Land Revenue Act, 1887 -- Rejection of plaint -- Suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the exclusive owners in possession of the suit land with declaration that the order passed by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, partitioning the property is null, void and beyond jurisdiction – Application for rejection of plaint dismissed -- Held, power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC can be exercised only if the court comes to a definite conclusion that the suit is barred by law -- It is a well settled principle that under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the plaint cannot be rejected partly -- A plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all -- Hence, no ground to interfere is made out – Revision dismissed.

(Para 1-6)