***

Appointment of lambardar -- Recommendations of lower revenue officers not binding on Collector.

***

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 28 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rules 15, 17 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Comparative merits -- Collector appointed petitioner primarily on basis of recommendations of lower revenue officers, despite rival candidate being younger and more educated -- Recommendations of lower revenue officers are not binding on Collector -- Collector required to apply his own judicious mind and consider comparative merits of all candidates in terms of Rules 15 and 17 for appointment of most suitable candidate.

(Paras 5-7.1)

***

Appointment of Lambardar -- Higher educational qualification alone not decisive.

***

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887) -- Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Comparative merit -- Petitioner claimed preference on ground of being B.A. LL.B. whereas selected candidate was 10+2 pass -- Rule 15 requires candidate to be literate, preferably middle pass -- Selected candidate, having studied upto 12th class, could not be said to be ineligible for appointment -- Petitioner being a practising advocate may not be available in village at all times to attend duties of Lambardar -- Collector considered age, educational qualification, landholding and recommendations of Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) while appointing selected candidate -- Choice of Collector cannot be lightly interfered with, even if two views are possible, unless there is patent illegality or perversity -- No such illegality or perversity pointed out -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Paras 5.1-8)

A. Constitution of India, Article 12 – Panchayat Samiti -- Instrumentality of State -- Panchayat Samiti, constituted under statutory enactments governing Panchayati Raj institutions and functioning under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, performs governmental and public functions at the grass-root level, operates under deep and pervasive control of the State Government and is substantially funded through State and Central grants – In view of the overwhelming financial dependence and dominant State funding, the financial control test unequivocally stands fulfilled – Held, Panchayat Samiti is an instrumentality of the State and falls within the meaning of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 20-33)

B. Constitution of India, Article 12 – Employee of Panchayat Samiti – Whether Government employee -- Once it has been held that the Panchayat Samiti is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the principal foundation of the respondents’ defence that the petitioner was not a Government employee stands substantially eroded.

(Para 3)

C. Constitution of India, Article 12, 14, 16 – Service Law – Daily wager in Panchayat Samiti – Regularisation under Government policy – De-regularisation after three years -- Petitioner appointed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar through Employment Exchange in 1991 under Panchayat Samiti – State Government framed regularisation policy dated 18.03.1996 for daily wage employees completing three years continuous service with 240 days each year – Petitioner’s services regularised w.e.f. 01.02.1996 and regular pay scale, increments and GPF benefits granted – After more than three years, State passed order de-regularising petitioner on ground that he was not a Government employee but employee of Panchayat Samiti -- Held: Reasoning is legally untenable :

-- it is impermissible for the respondents to subsequently withdraw the regularisation on the plea of lack of authority in the initial appointment. Any alleged defect in the appointment of 12.03.1991 cannot be used to unsettle a valid regularisation effected on 01.02.1996, particularly when no fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment is attributed to the petitioner.

-- de-regularisation order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness on account of inordinate delay. For over three years after regularisation, the petitioner was treated as a regular employee in all respects. Such prolonged acquiescence by the State creates a legitimate expectation in favour of the petitioner that his service status would not be disturbed. Administrative fairness does not permit the State to undo a settled position after such a lapse of time.

-- the action of the respondents is ex facie discriminatory. Other similarly situated employees were regularised under the same or similar policies. Though notices for de-regularisation were issued to some of them, their cases either remained protected by interim orders of this Court or became infructuous upon retirement. Singling out the petitioner for de-regularisation in 1999, while extending protection or continued service to others similarly placed, amounts to hostile discrimination and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

-- in view of the finding that the Panchayat Samiti is “State” under Article 12, the distinction sought to be drawn by the respondents between a Government employee and an employee of the Panchayat Samiti is artificial and unsustainable.

Impugned order quashed, and the petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in regular service w.e.f. 01.02.1996 with full continuity of service -- Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing therefrom, including pay fixation, grant of increments, and retiral benefits, if any -- Arrears arising on account of such refixation shall be paid to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, calculated from the date the amounts became due till the date of actual payment.

(Para 34-46)

A. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 74 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 4-24, 29(2) -- Appeal u/s 74 of  Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 -- Section 29(2) of the 1963 Act is mandatory, with the exception arising only by way of an express exclusion -- Therefore, in the absence of the same, Sections 4 to 24 of the said Act can be read into such special or local law -- The 2013 Act does not take away from its purview the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the 1963 Act – The 2013 Act being a subsequent legislation, it is obvious that the Legislature was conscious not to take away the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the 1963 Act from its purview – Section 74 of the 2013 Act does not exclude the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the 1963 Act.

(Para 62, 76, 77)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6, 11, 54 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(1)(a), 74 -- Acquisition of land under 1894 Act – Award after commencement of 2013 Act – Appeal u/s 74 of 2013 Act will lie -- Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act is applicable to all those cases where awards are passed after the commencement of the 2013 Act -- For passing the award under Section 24(1)(a), the provisions of the 2013 Act alone will have to be followed, except for the rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements -- The first appeals before the High Courts should be treated as ones under Section 74 of the 2013 Act and not under Section 54 of the 1894 Act.

(Para 97 (i)-(iii))

C. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 74, 103 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5, 29(2) – Appeal u/s 74 of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Limitation – Condonation of delay -- Section 74 of the 2013 Act does not bar the application of Section 5 of the 1963 Act -- Consequently, all the applications seeking condonation of delay in preferring the first appeals before the High Courts u/s 74 of the 2013 Act stand allowed -- High Courts shall avoid a pedantic approach as against a pragmatic one in dealing with the applications seeking condonation of delay.

(Para 97 (iv)-(viii))

A. Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 10A(b) -- Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (13 of 1955), Section 3 -- Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 12(3), 26 -- Declaration/ Vesting of Surplus land – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – An order declaring surplus area is, generally not amenable to the jurisdiction of the civil court, however, there are exceptions to this general rule -- To find out whether a civil court is barred under provisions of Section 26 of 1972 Act, the test would be whether there was a violation of 1972 Act/1953 Act/PEPSU Act committed by authorities or there was breach of natural justice -- Land was declared surplus vide orders dated 21.08.1956 and 09.06.1961 -- Possession of the land so declared surplus was never taken by the State -- In the absence of utilization, the orders declaring the land surplus in the hands of the landowner did not become operative against his rights prior to the enforcement of the 1972 Act -- Rights of major sons of the landowner had come into force prior to the utilization of the land so declared surplus -- Plaintiffs are challenging the operation and effect of those orders on account of non-utilization of the surplus land till the appointed date and effect of section 10-A(b) of 1953 Act -- Nature of the dispute raised by the plaintiff-appellants is, therefore, amenable to the jurisdiction of the civil court.

(Para 13, 14, 18)

B. Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 10A(b), 33(2)(ii) -- Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 12(3) -- Declaration/ Vesting of Surplus land – 1972 Act came into force -- Re-determination of surplus area – Where land declared surplus in the hand of land-owner was not utilised by State prior to enforcement of 1972 Act, such land would not automatically vest in State – Surplus area is required to be re-determined under Section 10-A(b) of 1953 Act -- Such re-determination shall be governed by the provisions of the 1953 Act only if any of the conditions specified under Section 10-A(b) of 1953 Act had arisen prior to the enforcement of the 1972 Act -- However, if the land stood utilized prior to the enforcement of the 1972 Act by way of allotment and taking of possession, the same shall vest exclusively in the State -- Where the land has not been utilized and none of the conditions laid down under Section 10-A(b) of 1953 Act had arisen prior to the enforcement of the 1972 Act, such land shall also vest in the State from the appointed date, i.e., 24.01.1971.

(Para 19)

C. Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 10A(b), 33(2)(ii) -- Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 12(3) – Declaration of Surplus land – Non-utilisation of – 1972 Act came into force -- Re-determination of surplus area – State was duty-bound to determine whether the surplus area was liable to be re-determined on account of the existence of any of the conditions enumerated under Section 10-A(b) of 1953 Act -- No such exercise undertaken by the State -- Appeal allowed, competent authority directed to determine whether any of the conditions specified under Section 10-A(b) of 1953 Act had arisen in favour of the landowner prior to the appointed date under the 1972 Act -- If such conditions are found to exist, the surplus area shall be re-determined accordingly under the 1953 Act -- In case none of the conditions specified under Section 10-A(b) are made out, the surplus land shall vest in the State.

(Para 19)

***

Occupancy tenants -- Claim for ownership -- Failure to prove occupancy tenancy -- Revenue records showing appellants as tenants at will and not occupancy tenants -- Failure to establish continuous possession for 30 years or link the suit land with previous khasra numbers following consolidation proceedings -- Appeal dismissed.

***

Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 (8 of 1953), Sections 5, 8 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Occupancy Tenants – Claim for Ownership – Tenants at Will – Appellants claimed ownership of the suit land on the basis of occupancy tenancy and asserted cultivating possession since 1942 -- Revenue records showed the appellants as tenants at will and not occupancy tenants -- No independent witness, elderly villager or revenue official was examined to establish occupancy rights -- Appellants failed to prove continuous possession for 30 years and that rent paid did not exceed the amount of land revenue -- Alleged agreement that they would never be evicted was not produced and remained unproved -- Appellants also failed to link the suit land with previous khasra numbers following consolidation proceedings -- No error of law or procedure warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact was established -- Regular second appeal dismissed.

(Paras 5–11)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary Injunction – Co-sharers – Construction on joint property – Equity – A co-owner who has himself raised construction on a portion of the joint land cannot seek injunction to restrain other co-owners from exercising similar rights over the joint property – Principle that one who seeks equity must act equitably applies.

(Para 6.1)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 5 -- Admission in earlier suit – Effect – Admission that suit land already stood partitioned and parties were in exclusive possession of their respective portions disentitles the petitioner from claiming injunction over the joint property.

(Para 6.1)

C. Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Revision – Interference with appellate order – Additional District Judge has interfered with the trial court’s order on sound reasoning, no illegality, arbitrariness or jurisdictional error -- Consequently, no interference is warranted in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The instant revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Para 6.2)

A. Constitution of India, Article 341(1), 342(1) -- Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe -- Power to specify a caste or tribe as a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is conferred upon the President of India, in relation to each State or Union Territory -- Once such specification is made, only Parliament, by law, may include or exclude any caste or tribe from the notified list -- Neither the executive nor the judiciary has any authority to modify or extend the scope of the Presidential Order.

(Para 9.4)

B. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 9, 161 -- Constitution of India, Article 341(1), 342(1) -- Election of Sarpanch – Reserved seat for Scheduled Caste -- Scheduled Caste Certificate of father from other State -- The words “in relation to that State or Union Territory” occurring in Articles 341(1) and 342(1) are of decisive significance; they indicate that the recognition of a caste or tribe is confined to the particular State or Union Territory for which it is so notified -- Since the petitioner does not belong to any caste notified as Scheduled Caste in the State of Haryana, she had no legal right to hold the office of Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes -- Petitioner’s reliance on a certificate obtained from the authorities in Haryana on the basis of Scheduled Caste Certificate of her father issued by the State of Bihar, would not entitle the petitioner to contest election as a Scheduled Caste candidate in Gram Panchayat elections in the State of Haryana.

(Para 9.4, 12, 13)

C. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 51, 161, 176 – Election of Sarpanch/ Panch – Challenge to -- Election of a candidate to the post of Sarpanch or Panch (as the case may be), could be questioned either by filing an election petition under Section 176 of the 1994 Act or by submitting a complaint to the concerned authority under Section 51 of the 1994 Act.

(Para 14, 14.1)

A. Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (8 of 1953), Section 3 – Occupancy tenant recorded as owner in revenue record/ Jamabandi – No question of getting a declaration from the Court to the effect that he had become the owner by virtue of the 1952 Act.

(Para 15)

B. Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (8 of 1953), Section 3 – Death of occupancy tenant -- After getting ownership, he died without leaving behind legal heirs -- Effect of -- Occupancy tenant was already recorded as an owner well before his death -- As such, the defendants-appellants, the erstwhile landlords were left with no right, title or interest whatsoever in the suit land so as to seek redemption of the same – Trial Court rightly set aside mutation re-entered in the name of erstwhile owner.

(Para 16, 17)

A. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 51, 175(v), 176 – Removal of Women Sarpanch – Qualification-Minimum Middle pass -- Educational qualification neither verified nor proved by the concerned school from which petitioner claims to have passed the 8th class examination -- Petitioner also not made any effort to establish the authenticity or genuineness of the School Leaving Certificate relied upon by her -- Mark-sheet of the 8th class examination, which the petitioner claims to have passed, has not been placed on record of with writ petition – Held, petitioner does not possess the minimum educational qualification (middle class pass for woman candidate) prescribed for contesting the election to the post of Sarpanch and, therefore, she has been rightly removed from the said post.

(Para 10)

B. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 51, 175(v), 176 – Election of Sarpanch – Election petition – Removal of Sarpanch on complaint – Permissibility of -- Contention that since respondent No.6 has also filed an election petition, the complaint filed by her before the District Authorities could not be entertained under Section 51 of the 1994 Act – Held, if the petitioner had any objection as regards the maintainability of the complaint u/s 51 of the 1994 Act, then she should have availed her appropriate remedies before the competent Court at the relevant stage by challenging such proceedings -- However, no such recourse appears to have been taken by the petitioner – Held, once the petitioner had duly participated in the proceedings initiated against her under Section 51 of the 1994 Act and also suffered an adverse order, she cannot now be permitted to turn around and raise an objection to the maintainability of such proceedings merely on the ground that an election petition had also been filed against her – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 11-13)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 15, 210 – Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 76, 80, 81 – Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, Rule 50 – Election petition challenging election of Sarpanch -- Procedure before Tribunal – Framing of issues -- Neither the response has been called for nor issues have been framed – No evidence was recorded -- Tribunal proceeded to decide the election petition as if he was resolving a trivial dispute without realizing that he was dealing with democratic rights of the parties -- Order is bereft of application of mind -- Election petition has been adjudicated by passing a callous order – Impugned order not sustainable, quashed – Matter remanded back to Tribunal to decide in accordance  with law.

(Para 10-12)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Mutation -- Already sold property – Appropriate remedy -- Revenue authorities refused to record name of the appellants after noticing the fact that the original person, through whom appellants-vendor claim right, had already sold his share and was not left with any land which could be transferred – Issues sought to be raised by the appellants cannot be examined in summary proceedings of mutation -- Remedy of the appellants would be to seek appropriate declaration from the competent Civil Court.

(Para 2-4)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Mutation Proceeding – Nature of -- Any order passed in summary proceedings of mutation remain subservient to a declaration granted by the competent Civil Court.

(Para 4)

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 51(1)(b), 51(3)(e) -- Suspension of Sarpanch – Threat of self-immolation by Sarpanch -- Resorting to self-harm as a means of protest is neither a recognised form of legal redress nor can it be countenanced in a constitutional democracy -- Prima facie, this amounts to mis-conduct in the discharge of her duties and her continuance in the office is un-desirable in the public interest in terms of Section 51(3)(e) of the 1994 Act -- In terms of Section 51(1)(b) of the 1994 Act, the Deputy Commissioner was justified in ordering suspension of petitioner from the post of Sarpanch – Suspension order upheld.

(Para 8, 9)

Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (7 of 2014), Section 3, 4, 17, 36 -- Welfare of Street Vendors – Medical and insurance facility to street vendors -- Duty of Municipal Corporation -- Street vendors and their families, who are depositing fee with the Municipal Corporation for the certificate being given to them for vending, also need to be provided some social protection -- Amount so recovered by the Municipal Corporation should, therefore, be used for their benefits alone and should be kept in a separate budget head, and as a suitable insurance for them, including medical facilities, should be provided by the Municipal Corporation, U.T. Chandigarh, and Rules in this regard should be framed -- Municipal Corporation, U.T. Chandigarh, should set up a particular cell of Inspectors/ Officers to regulate that there is no misuse of the Vendors’ Act so that genuine people may not be harmed.

(Para 17-19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379, 411 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- M.P. Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2022, Rules 3, 4 – Quashing of FIR -- Theft – Excavation of sand by Panchayat -- Exception under Rule 4 granted to the Gram Panchayat for transportation and storage of minor minerals quarried from the Government lands for public works -- This rule cannot be interpreted to the extent that the Gram Panchayat can commit theft or can illegally excavate the sand -- State Government is the owner of every mineral and therefore the illegal excavation of the same would amount to commission of theft -- It is not the case of applicant that the sand was purchased by the Gram Panchayat and the sand in question was quarried from Govt. land in legal manner -- Court can quash the proceedings only if the uncontroverted allegations do not make out an offence -- Application dismissed.

(Para 5-10)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Age of candidate – Choice of Collector – Writ jurisdiction -- Respondent No.4 was appointed as the lambardar by the learned Collector -- Said appointment further affirmed by the learned Commissioner and Financial Commissioner -- Respondent No.4 is younger in age than the petitioner and has studied up to 10+2 along with an ITI diploma and he also owns 28 kanals of land in the Village and is an agriculturist – Held, in the matter of appointment of the lambardar age of a candidate is a relevant consideration and also the choice of the learned Collector is not to be lightly interfered with even if two views are possible unless there is patent illegality or perversity therein -- No illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities -- Writ petition fails and dismissed.

(Para 5-8)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Allegation of encroachment over Panchayat land -- Collector appointed petitioner as Lambardar -- Ld. Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner remanded the matter to the learned Collector for verifying the illegal encroachment over the Panchayat land by the petitioner – There is considerable basis for remanding the matter to the learned Collector for verifying the illegal encroachment over the Panchayat land by the petitioner especially considering the fact that certain ejectment orders were produced before the learned Financial Commissioner -- No merit in writ petition dismissed.

(Para 7)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 --  Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Hereditary claim -- Petitioner was wrongly appointed as Lambardar (BC) on the ground of his hereditary claim by Collector – Divisional Commissioner rightly set aside the order  of Collector being ultra vires the Constitution -- Respondent No. 4 is more meritorious than the petitioner in terms of his age and educational qualification and his name was recommended by lower revenue officials – No illegality or perversity in the order passed by learned Divisional Commissioner in appointing respondent No. 4 as Lambardar.

(Para 7-9)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Acquittal in criminal case – Effect of -- Although the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal cases, however, once a person with clean image/ antecedents available, then no fault can be found in the choice of the Collector in appointing respondent No.4 as lambardar.

(Para 8)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – Interference in – Permissibility of -- In the matter of appointment of lambardar, the choice of the Collector is not to be lightly interfered with even if two views are possible unless there is patent illegality or perversity therein.

(Para 9)

Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 14(1)(b)(iii) -- Muslim Member of Bar Council – Appointment as member of Waqf Board – Challenge to – Appellant been elected as a member of Bar Council – As such elected as a Member of the Board, in accordance with Section 14(1)(b)(iii) of the 1995 Act -- Respondent No. 3, who is no longer holding the said post of a Muslim Member of the Bar Council, cannot be allowed to contend that even after he had ceased to be a Member of the Bar Council, he would be entitled to continue as a Member of the Board -- Appellant is the only Muslim Member in the Bar Council, a fact that has been rightly taken note of by the State of Manipur, while appointing him as a Member of the Board -- No dispute with respect to the appellant’s eligibility to be a Member of the Board – Appointment upheld.

(Para 1, 18-21)

A. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17, 69 (a) to (j); Section 22A, 22B (State amendment of Tamilnadu) – Registration Rules, Rule 55A(i) (State Amendment of Tamilnadu) -- Registration of sale deed – Refusal to register -- Power of Registrar – Rule 55A(i) declared ultra vires the 1908 Act -- None of Clauses (a) to (j) of Section 69 provides for framing Rules conferring power on the registering authority to refuse registration of a document of transfer -- No provision under the 1908 Act confers power on any authority to refuse registration of a transfer document -- Unless documents are produced evidencing title as required by Rule 55A(i), registration of the sale deed shall be refused.

Held, registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant -- He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title -- Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid – Rule-making power u/s 69 cannot be exercised to make a Rule that is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act -- Due to the inconsistency, Rule 55A(i) declared ultra vires the 1908 Act.

(Para 11-15)

B. Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 -- Registration of sale deed/ Lease deed – Power of Registrar -- Effect of wrong registration -- Under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer -- Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances, the document must be registered -- The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses -- If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.

(Para 15)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ petition – Challenge to orders of quasi-judicial authorities -- Cause of action arose to father – Locus standi of son after 30 year -- Father of the petitioners died in the year 2015 -- Orders which now being assailed by the petitioners was in existence for almost 30 years as till the date when the father of the petitioners died and in his wisdom the father of the petitioner, never assailed it – Held, petitioners do not have any locus to file and maintain the writ petition.

(Para 3, 4)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 122, 123, 126 -- Gift deed – Completion of -- Unilateral cancellation – Permissibility of -- Delivery of possession is not sine qua non to validate a gift or settlement -- Delivery of possession is only one of the methods to prove acceptance and not the sole method – If the original deed was returned after registration, the fact that it was already acted upon, cannot be altered -- Receipt of the original document by the plaintiff and registration of the same, would amount to acceptance of the gift and the transaction satisfies the requirement of Section 122 of the TP Act -- Once the document is declared as “gift”, Donor/ defendant No.1 had no right to cancel the same unilaterally and the Sub Registrar had no right to register the cancellation deed -- Unilateral cancellation of the document is void and as a natural corollary, the sale deed executed by Donor/ Defendant No.1 / father also is invalid.

(Para 18)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 10A – Shamilat deh -- Jurisdiction of Collector/ Financial Commissioner -- Cancellation of lease by Financial Commissioner – Held, jurisdiction to rescind or cancel lease solitarily vested in the Collector of the Revenue District concerned -- Financial Commissioner or any other officer of the Government of Punjab, except the Collector concerned held no jurisdiction to cancel the leases concerned -- Impugned order passed by Financial Commissioner, set aside.

(Para 1, 2, 5-10)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 – Shamilat deh -- Notice to vacate by BDPO – Challenge to -- Writ jurisdiction – Dispute relates to the question of title and possession over the panchayat land involving disputed questions of fact – Court declines to enter into merits of the matter and relegates the petitioner to approach the Collector u/s 11 of the Act of 1961.

(Para 4, 5)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Collector has taken note of age, education, landholding etc. of the respective candidates and also taken into account the recommendation by lower revenue officers etc. -- Respondent No. 4 was a novice of about 20 years of age whereas the petitioner was found to be a mature and intelligent person, Collector found petitioner as a suitable candidate -- It is a well settled law that in the matter of appointment of Lambardar, the choice of Collector is not to be lightly interfered with even if two views are possible – Order of Financial Commissioner set aside and the order passed by learned Collector, appointing the petitioner as Lambardar maintained.

(Para 6, 7)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Recommendation of revenue officer -- Collector is not bound by the recommendation made by the revenue authorities in favour of a candidate; however, due consideration is to be accorded to such recommendations as they are in a position to assess the suitability of a candidate and such recommendation would have some persuasive value.

(Para 6.5)

Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (29 of 1974), Section 2(15), 24 -- Restoration of watercourse -- Once the authority upon consideration of the matter has come to the conclusion that restoration of the watercourse on permanent basis was called for on account of the fact that the watercourse was running for more than 20 years and even the warabandi stood sanctioned thereon, no exception can be taken to the said course.

(Para 4)

Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (60 of 1958), Section 48(1) -- Revenue authority – Power of review – Waiver of parties – Permissibility of -- Cannot concur with the High Court’s reasoning that the Appellants “submitted themselves” to the authority’s review process or somehow acquiesced in the second decision -- Jurisdiction cannot be created by consent or waiver -- The law does not permit a statutory functionary to assume powers not conferred upon it, regardless of how the parties engage in subsequent litigation.

(Para 13)

A. Municipal records – Ownership -- Municipal record cannot be treated as ownership.

(Para 10)

B. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 65 – Suit for possession – Limitation -- Suit for possession of immovable property can be filed within 12 years from the date when the possession of the defendants became adverse to the plaintiff – No specific date and time of dispossession has been specified in the pleadings and no evidence regarding the same has been adduced – Plaintiff during his cross-examination stated that defendants are in possession of the suit property for the last 30-35 years – Suit held to be filed beyond the period of limitation.

(Para 11)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 54 – Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 -- Agreement to sell – Whether, it is transfer of title? -- Agreement for sale in respect of an immovable property does not transfer title in favour of the purchaser under the agreement -- An agreement for sale does not create any interest in the property -- The only mode by which an immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred) can be sold is by a sale deed duly registered in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

(Para 6)

A. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47A(1) -- Registration of document -- Reference to Collector – Nature of -- Registering Officer, after registration of the document, can refer the same for adjudication before the Collector, if he has reason to believe that there was deliberate undervaluation of the property -- Such a reference is not a mechanical act, but the Registering Officer should have a basis for coming to prima facie finding of undervaluation of the property -- Duty is enjoined upon the Registering Officer to ensure that Section 47-A(1) does not work as an engine of oppression nor as a matter of routine, mechanically, without application of mind as to the existence of any material or reason to believe the fraudulent intention to evade payment of proper Stamp Duty.

-- The expression ‘reason to believe’ is not synonymous with subjective satisfaction of the officer. The belief must be held in good faith, it cannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the Court to examine the question whether the reasons for the belief must have a rational connection or a relevant bearing to the formation of the belief and are not irrelevant or extraneous to the purpose of the section. The word ‘reason to believe’ means some material on the basis of which the department can re-open the proceedings. However, satisfaction is necessary in terms of material available on record, which should be based on objective satisfaction arrived at reasonably.

(Para 21)

B. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47A(1) -- Registration of document – Reference to Collector – Undervaluation property – Material to support – Roving enquiry – Permissibility of -- It is not permissible for the Registering Officer to undertake a roving enquiry for the purpose of ascertaining the correct market value of the property -- If the Registering Officer is bona fide of the view that the sale consideration shown in the sale deed is not correct and the sale is undervalued, then it is obligatory on the part of the Registering Authority as well as the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) to assign some reason for arriving at such a conclusion -- In such circumstances, if the document in question is straightway referred to the Collector without recording any prima facie reason, the same would vitiate the entire enquiry and the ultimate decision.

(Para 27)

C. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47A(1) -- Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, Rule 4, 6, 7 -- As per Rule 6 of the Rules 1968, after passing the provisional order, it is obligatory on the part of the Collector to communicate the market value of the property and the duty payable by the parties concerned in Form II – After the issue of Form II, the parties concerned have to be given an opportunity to submit their representation in respect of determining the market value of the subject property -- Thereafter, as contemplated in Rule 7 of the Rules 1968, the Collector, after considering the representation if received in writing and the submissions that might have been urged at the time of hearing or even in the absence of any representation from the parties concerned, proceed to pass the final order -- Collector (Stamps) directly issued the final order in violation of the Rules 4 and 6 – High Court set aside orders passed by Chief Revenue Controlling Officer-cum-the-Inspector General of Registration – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 2, 30-32)

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23 – Senior citizen case -- Transfer of possession of property  -- Setting aside of gift deed -- Power of Tribunal -- The Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, aimed at securing the rights of senior citizens, in view of the challenges faced by them -- It is in this backdrop that the Act must be interpreted and a construction that advances the remedies of the Act must be adopted -- It cannot be said that the Tribunals constituted under the Act, while exercising jurisdiction u/s 23, cannot order possession to be transferred.

(Para 13-25)

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Coparcener property -- By definition, an ancestral property is a coparcenary property, where "coparceners" are legal heirs with an inherent interest in the property from birth -- Such properties remain undivided within joint families, with legal heirs enjoying their shares.

(Para 16)

B. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Coparcener property -- Family settlement – Effect of -- Suit property could not have been held to be an ancestral property, as the same was received by the erstwhile owner by way of a family settlement, wherein, the two brothers divided two equally measuring plots between themselves -- Hence, the property could not have been said to be delved on the father by virtue of him being a coparcener in that property.

(Para 19)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Regular Second Appeal – Scope of -- Section 100 of the CPC confers a limited jurisdiction on the High Court to deal only with any legal error apparent on the face of the record -- Since there arises no substantial question of law to be adjudicated, the appeal dismissed.

(Para 20, 21)

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17(2)(vi) – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 3, Article 22 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23 Rule 3 -- Compromise decree for immovable property – Pre-existing right -- Stamp duty -- Registration – Requirements of -- If a compromise decree involves immovable property other than the property for which a decree is prayed for, such a property would not be exempted and would require registration -- To avail the exemption from compulsory registration, the compromise decree arrived must be only in respect of the property that is the subject-matter of the suit -- Compromise arrived at before the Lok Adalat and the award passed by the Lok Adalat thereto assume the character of a decree passed under Order XXIII Rule 3 and would also come within the ambit and purview of sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Act, 1908 -- In order to fall under the exception of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act, 1908, the following conditions must be satisfied:

(i)There must be a compromise decree as per the terms of the compromise without any collusion;

(ii)The compromise decree must pertain to the subject property in the suit; and

(iii)There must be a  pre-existing right over the subject property, and the compromise decree should not create a right afresh.

(Para 7-10, 13)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 53A – Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 – Transfer of property by unregistered document -- Part performance of contract – Object of Section 53A of T.P.A. – Interpretation of -- Section 53-A was inserted principally for the protection of ignorant transferees who take possession or spend money in improvements relying on documents which are ineffective as transfers or on contracts which cannot be proved for want of registration -- The effect of this section, is to relax the strict provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act in favour of transferees in order to allow the defence of part performance to be established -- Section 53-A is an exception to the provisions which require a contract to be in writing and registered and which bar proof of such contract by any other evidence -- Consequently, the exception must be strictly construed.

(Para 13, 14)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- Suit for declaration – Challenge to sae deed -- Advalorem court fee – Petitioner/ plaintiff was one of the executants of the sale deed sought to be challenged -- Although the petitioner has couched the suit as being suit for declaration but in fact the petitioner is seeking cancellation of the sale deed  -- It would be incumbent upon the petitioner to pay the ad valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed.

(Para 3, 4)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 -- Joint land – Sale of specific khasra Number – Legality of -- Even if specific Khasra numbers are sold out of joint land, the same still is sale of share in the joint holding -- It is not disputed by the plaintiffs that subject matter of sale deed challenged in the suit, is less than the entitlement of K.S. – Held, suit seeking declaration to the effect that sale deed executed by K.S. in favour of the defendants itself was not maintainable once the share sold by him was less than the share of K.S.

(Para 15, 16)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6, 8 – Co-parcenary property – Sole-coparcener – Alienation of property – Right of -- Sole surviving co-parcener is entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property as his separate property as long as he remains a sole surviving coparcener and he may sell or mortgage the coparcenary property even though there is no legal necessity or family benefit or may even make a gift of the coparcenary property -- When the sons and grandchildren are born to the family, then automatically by birth they acquire the right over the ancestral and joint family property and cannot dispose of the same.

(Para 22, 23)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 21, 22 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Fresh proclamation – Challenge to -- Petitioner is about 80 years of age, proceedings for filling up the vacant post of Lambardar of Village were initiated more than 10 years ago and the same have not been finalized till date -- Only two applicants for the post -- Authorities have concurrently held that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, if a fresh munadi is ordered to be conducted as the same shall widen the choice of better selection for the post of Lambardar – Neither the copy of the proclamation notice placed on record nor the name of the place where the said notice was pasted forthcoming -- It cannot be concluded that the proclamation was validly conducted – Writ dismissed.

(Para 4, 5)

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17(2)(xii) – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), First Schedule, Article 18, 23 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 94 -- Auction sale – Sale certificate -- Stamp duty – Requirement of -- Sale certificate issued to the purchaser in pursuance of the confirmation of an auction sale is merely evidence of such title and does not require registration u/s 17(1) of the Registration Act -- Mere filing u/s 89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded by the authorised officer to the registering authority – However, Articles 18 and 23 respectively of the first schedule to the Stamp Act respectively makes it clear that when the auction purchaser presents the original sale certificate for registration, it would attract stamp duty in accordance with the said Articles -- As long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable -- It is only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise.

(Para 7, 13-20)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 6A, 7(iv-A) – Advalorem court fee -- Suit claiming a decree for declaration to the effect that the gift deed be declared as null, void, forged and fabricated having no effect on the rights of the plaintiff and consequential information in this regard be sent to the Sub-Registrar's office -- It is not a simplicitor suit for declaration of rights and it clearly falls under section 7(iv-A) of the Act.

(Para 3, 11)

Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (6 of 1954), Section 14, 133 – Partition of land – Mutation entry thereof – Appeal by stranger – Maintainability of -- Mutation was entered and attested to give effect to the family partition carried out by the petitioners, i.e. co-owners of the joint land – Complete stranger to the joint land co-owned by the petitioners cannot have any grievance against the partition carried out between the co-owners (the petitioners) with respect to the joint land – Revenue Authorities had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal preferred by him against Mutation.

(Para 5-5(v))

Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 6, 7, 83 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 -- Waqf property – Jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunal -- Gair Mumkin Khangah and Takia -- Tribunal decided the issue of jurisdiction and held that the question of title would be decided by the Collector under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, however decided the other issued on merits – Tribunal would not be excluded from adjudicating the matter -- Tribunal having held that it did not have the jurisdiction to try and decide the suit, the findings on merits on other issues could not have been rendered by it -- Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law.

(Para 1, 3, 6-8)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 (d) -- Appointment of Lambardar – Interaction quality of candidate – Consideration of -- Appellant was quizzed by the Collector, District Collector found that appellant was incapable of telling anything about himself, it was found that he was not a suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar – Respondent no. 4 was appointed as he appeared to be more mature and healthy person -- The interaction part, which is most important aspect to find out the capability as such, was totally lost sight of by the Financial Commissioner while interfering in the well-considered order of the Collector – Ld. Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.4 and set-aside the order passed by the Financial Commissioner – No merit in appeal, dismissed.

(Para 1, 4-6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Mutation entry – Inaction of authority – Direction sought for respondent No.2 to take immediate decision on the mutation application moved by petitioner -- NOCs of other legal heirs have already been submitted by the petitioner in the year 2013 – Direction issued to respondent No.2 to take a decision on the mutation application by a reasoned and speaking order not later than three months.

(Para 3-6)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Land-holding – Requirement of -- Ld. Collector recorded in his order that the petitioner has land in another village, which is enough for the land revenue security purpose – Ld. Collector is the main authority for appointment of the Lambardar -- It is the Collector, who not only appreciates the antecedents of all the candidates in the fray but also personally interacts with them – Ld. Financial Commissioner has erred in upsetting the choice of the Collector – As land revenue stood abolished in both the State of Punjab and Haryana, long back, thus owning land by the candidates for the post of Lambardar would not be of much significance any further – Petitioner’s appointment was set aside only on the ground that he did not own any land in the revenue estate – Financial Commissioner order set aside.

(Para 7-11)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Younger in age – Non-consideration of other factors – Effect of -- Petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by Collector, only on the ground that she is younger than the other candidates; whereas, the other factors, as envisaged under Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, have not been taken into consideration – Commissioner remanded back the case, which order was upheld by the Financial Commissioner --  Case requires a fresh look at the level of District Collector is correct and does not call for any interference.

(Para 8.1-9)

Court-fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1970), Section 7 – Sale deed – Challenge to -- Ad-valorem court fee -- Neither the plaintiff is executant of the sale deed nor has sought possession -- Being a non-executant, plaintiff can avoid the sale deed and thus, is not required to affix ad valorum Court fee on the value of the property.

(Para 10)

Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (4 of 1994), Section 131(4), 146 – Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997, Rule 143, 148 -- Removal of Pradhan of Panchayat – Bye-election – Statutory remedies -- Revision petition pending adjudication before the Secretary (Panchayati Raj) -- In case, the post of Pradhan Gram Panchayat is allowed to be filled-up by holding Bye-election, right to hold the post of Pradhan, in case she eventually succeeds in her revision petition, would be adversely affected -- Decision taken by the State Election Commission to withdraw the Election Notice in respect of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat does not call for any interference.

(Para 4)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15(c) – Appointment of Lambardar -- Service to nation – Availability in village -- Respondent No.4/ appointed candidate earlier had worked for 16 years as Lambardar and was a retired officer from CRPF and sufficiently educated upto 10th standard and had served the nation and he had taken part in various wars/operations and also a holder of prestigious President Medal -- Service rendered to the State is an important aspect -- Appellant is working in the Forest Department and, therefore, cannot give as much time to the villagers – Appointment of respondent no. 4, upheld.

(Para 4, 5)