Local Acts Reporter 2011(3) L.A.R. ............

Latest Laws

Feburary Part 2012(1)L.A.R. SUBJECT INDEX

Acquisition of land
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Challenge to -- Delay and laches Award not passed within statutory period -- Writ petition was filed immediately after pronouncement of the award Could not have been non-suited by invoking the rule of laches. R. Indira Saratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 136 (SC). Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Market Value Compensation payable to the claimants has to be computed in terms of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act -- Market value of the land has to be determined at the date of the publication of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act, after taking into consideration what is stated under Sections 23(1), 23(1A), 23(2) and excluding the considerations stated under Section 24 of the Act -- It is not possible to fix the compensation with exactitude or arithmetic accuracy -- Court may have to take recourse to some guesswork while determining the fair market value of the land and the consequential amount of compensation. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Stay of proceedings Statutory period for Award -- If any action or proceeding required to be taken after the issue of declaration u/s 6 is stayed by a Court, the entire period of stay will get excluded in calculating the period of two years within which an award is required to be made by the Collector -- Once the stay order passed by a Court is vacated or ceases to operate, the clog put on the running of the period specified in the main section is removed. R. Indira Saratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 136 (SC). Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Stay of proceedings Statutory period for Award -- Time taken in supply of copy of the judgment cannot extend the period of two years specified in Section 11A. R. Indira Saratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 136 (SC). Market Value -- Plotting has been done only on part of the acquired land and the land is surrounded by colonies like ITBP etc. but, there is no evidence to show that the acquired land itself is developed and is having all the required facilities and amenities -- It may be a case where less deduction may be applied but certainly it is not a case of no deduction' -Deduction of 10% from the market value on account of development charges and other possible expenditures would be justifiable and called for in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Market Value Principle of guesstimation -- Principle of guesstimation will have no application to the case of no evidence'-- This principle is only intended to bridge the gap

between the calculated compensation and the actual compensation Certain principles controlling the application of guesstimate are : (a) Wherever the evidence produced by the parties is not sufficient to determine the compensation with exactitude, this principle can be resorted to -- (b) Discretion of the court in applying guesswork to the facts of a given case is not unfettered but has to be reasonable and should have a connection to the data on record produced by the parties by way of evidence. Further, this entire exercise has to be within the limitations specified under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act and cannot be made in detriment thereto. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Market Value -- Sale instance Law of deduction Not possible to state precisely the exact deduction which could be made Deduction is to be applied on account of carrying out development activities like providing roads or civic amenities such as electricity, water etc. when the land has been acquired for construction of residential, commercial or institutional projects -- It shall also be applied where the sale instances (exemplars) relate to smaller pieces of land and in comparison the acquisition relates to a large tract of land -- Deduction can also be applied on account of wastage of land -- It is neither possible nor appropriate to stricto sensu define a class of cases where the Court would not apply any deduction -- The cases where the acquired land itself is fully developed and has all essential amenities, before acquisition, for the purpose for which it is acquired requiring no additional expenditure for its development, falls under the purview of cases of no deduction'. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Market Value -- Sale instance -- Sale deeds executed in favour of the family members or persons known to the claimants just about two months prior to the issuance of the notification u/s 4(1) are liable to be ignored. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Market Value -- Sale instance -- Vendor or vendee of sale deed had not been examined to prove them in Court -- Sale instances cannot be rejected on that ground.Cement Corporation of Indias case (2004)8 SCC 270 relied. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Market Value -- Sale instance of smaller size of land Sale instances even of smaller plots could be considered for determining the market value of a larger chunk of land with some deduction unless, there was comparability in potential, utilisation, amenities and infrastructure with hardly any distinction. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Market Value Small sale instance -- Deduction from -- Land acquired had the potential of being developed for residential or institutional purposes, the same was acquired for construction of a Government Polytechnic Institute Sale instance is situated at a distance of 1-1/2 furlong from the acquired land cannot be said to be incomparable sale instance, i.e. it has to be taken as a comparable sale instance Value of sale of small pieces of land can be taken into consideration for determining even the value of a large tract of land 10% deduction is made from the estimated market value of acquired land. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr.,2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Actual notice
When notice is directly served upon a party in a formal manner or when it is received personally by him, there is actual notice. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Adverse inference
Non-reply of Notice In view of the pending litigation, non issue of the replies to the notices cannot be treated as an admission of the averments in the notices.Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Another v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 120 (SC).

Age
Appointment of Lambardar Experience with Tau -- Contention that private respondent has made a false statement with regard to his experience and working with his Tau Contention that at the time of death of previous Lambardar, private respondent was about 12 years of age and this will affect merit qua the appointment of respondent No.5 -- Contention is rejected. Jai Bhagwan v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 204 (P&H).

Allotment of land
Evacuee property As per the Jamabandi, the land in question has been recorded under the ownership of the Central Government, which indicates that it is not the package deal property -- Appellant was unable to show any document, indicating that the property in question was a package deal property Appellant is not entitled for allotment of the same under the Punjab Package Act. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 207 (P&H DB). Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 -- Delay and laches -- Husband of the petitioner had made supreme sacrifice of his life for the country during the Indo-Pak War of 1965 -- Case of the petitioner for allotment of land to her was duly recommended by the concerned Commanding Officer Petitioner is directed to move an application and the same shall be sympathetically considered by the competent authority, without adhering to the technical objection of non-filing of the application and by passing a well-reasoned speaking order, within a period of two months thereafter -- Whether the Government is duty bound to consider the case of petitioner on merits or not? Answer must obviously be in the affirmative. Jagir Kaur v. The State of Punjab, 2012(1) L.A.R. 116 (P&H).

Appointment of Lambardar
Age Experience with Tau -- Contention that private respondent has made a false statement with regard to his experience and working with his Tau Held, in the villages it is a common practice that an aged man is accompanied by younger male member in the family -If such statement is made, such cannot be treated as misleading -- Contention that at the time of death of previous Lambardar, private respondent was about 12 years of age and this will affect merit qua the appointment of respondent No.5 -- Contention is rejected. Jai Bhagwan v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 204 (P&H). Choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly, it can only be set aside if there is any perversity or illegality. Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 132 (P&H). Choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly unless there is perversity in the order passed by the Collector -- Collector has appreciated the comparative merit of the candidates and has come to a conclusion that private respondent is a more suitable and meritorious candidate for appointment as Lambardar -- Commissioner did not find any perversity in the order of the Collector, inspite of that the appointment was set aside -- Financial

Commissioner restored the order of Collector In the judicial review, the power of High Court is limited to the extent of looking into the perversity, illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the competent authority -- Held, there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order of the Financial Commissioner Writ dismissed.Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 202 (P&H). Comparative merits Choice of Collector -- Petitioner has misappropriated the amount of the Cooperative Society of the village and his services were terminated -- Besides this private respondent is an Ex-serviceman and is a middle pass and he had been a member of the Market Committee and he also remained Sarpanch of the village -- He also remained Sarbrah Lambardar of the village for five years and is well conversant with the works of the lambardari Collector found private respondent to be a better candidate for appointment to the post of Lambardar -- It is settled law that the choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly. Harbhagwan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 198 (P&H). Comparative merits -- Petitioner is 36 years of age, graduate and diploma holder in computer education, he owns 6 kanal and 11 marlas of land in the village and 32 kanals in another village -- Petitioner further got Fixed Deposits to the tune of Rs. 57 lac and 15 family planning cases Private respondent to the contrary, is 55 years of age, 9th class pass and owns 10 acres of land in the village Private respondent got Fixed Deposits worth Rs. 45,74,000/- and Fixed Deposit to the tune of Rs. 8 lac in his own name; one LIC policy and 9 cases of family planning, he himself has been a Sarpanch for one term, his Mother has been Panch for one term -- Petitioner has been a member of the Block Samiti for 5 years and father of the petitioner also remained Sarpanch of the village Criminal complaint against respondent ended in a compromise u/s 323, 324, 326, 341 and 506 IPC -- Acquittal was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Held, after considering overall merits/ disabilities, respondent has substantially more social standing as compared to the petitioner Private respondents appointment as Lambardar upheld. Bhim Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 162 (P&H). Comparative merits -- Private Respondent is having more land, son of deceased Lambardar, is also an ex-serviceman, served in the Army for five years and his character has been found to be exemplary and also remained as Sarbrah Nambardar of the village, who is well conversant with the works of the Lambardar, whereas the reputation of petitioner is not clear as a criminal case has been registered against him -- Petitioner is having less land -Only young age of the petitioner cannot be a ground to appoint him as Lambardar -- Mere fact that a number of persons supported the candidature of the petitioner does not give any right to the petitioner to be appointed as Lambardar Collector appointed petitioner as Lambardar Order upheld. Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 195 (P&H). Disqualification -- Father was defaulter Held, for the fault of father, he cannot be deprived of his right and his merit cannot be ignored on this ground alone. Jai Bhagwan v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 204 (P&H). Disqualification For the fault of the family members, a person claiming his right in his individual capacity cannot be deprived of those rights. Jai Bhagwan v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 204 (P&H). Educational qualification -- No qualification prescribed under the rules -- There is not much difference in 10+2 or Matric. Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 132 (P&H).

F.I.R. Effect of Contention that private respondent is not eligible for appointment as Lambardar since a criminal case was registered against him u/s 323, 324 and 34 of the IPC Held, registration of FIR is to set the law in motion -- Those offences are compoundable and the case has been compromised and challan has not been presented, so the contention is rejected. Harbhagwan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 198 (P&H). Qualification -- Personal influence, character, services rendered to the State by himself or by the family, service rendered to the community and development programmes are relevant considerations for appointment of a Lambardar. Bhim Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 162 (P&H). Recommendation of Revenue Authorities Remand by Commissioner Effect of -Earlier recommendations made by the A.C. IInd Grade and Ist Grade are insignificant, since the Divisional Commissioner, had set aside the order of the Collector appointing petitioner as Lambardar -- Only the subsequent order after the remand is to be taken into consideration. Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 195 (P&H).

Challenge to Acquisition of land

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Delay and laches Award not passed within statutory period -- Writ petition was filed immediately after pronouncement of the award Could not have been non-suited by invoking the rule of laches. R. Indira Saratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 136 (SC).

Choice of Collector
Appointment of Lambardar -- Choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly, it can only be set aside if there is any perversity or illegality. Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 132 (P&H). Appointment of Lambardar -- Choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly unless there is perversity in the order passed by the Collector -- Collector has appreciated the comparative merit of the candidates and has come to a conclusion that private respondent is a more suitable and meritorious candidate for appointment as Lambardar -- Commissioner did not find any perversity in the order of the Collector, inspite of that the appointment was set aside -- Financial Commissioner restored the order of Collector In the judicial review, the power of High Court is limited to the extent of looking into the perversity, illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the competent authority -- Held, there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order of the Financial Commissioner Writ dismissed. Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 202 (P&H). Appointment of Lambardar Comparative merits Petitioner has misappropriated the amount of the Cooperative Society of the village and his services were terminated -- Besides this private respondent is an Ex-serviceman and is a middle pass and he had been a member of the Market Committee and he also remained Sarpanch of the village -- He also remained Sarbrah Lambardar of the village for five years and is well conversant with the works of the lambardari Collector found private respondent to be a better candidate for appointment to the post of Lambardar -- It is settled law that the choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly. Harbhagwan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 198 (P&H).

Circulation of newspaper

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Notification u/s 4 -- Publication of notification in two newspapers -- If there is failure to publish in two daily newspapers or if the publication is in two newspapers that have no circulation at all in the locality, without anything more, the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act and the consequential acquisition proceedings will be vitiated, on the ground of non-compliance with an essential condition of section 4(1) of the Act. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC). Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Notification u/s 4 -- Publication of notification in two newspapers -- If the two newspapers carrying the publication of the notification have reasonably wide circulation in the locality, then the requirements of section 4(1) are complied with -- In that event, neither the notification u/s 4(1), nor the consequential acquisition proceedings would be open to challenge, on the ground of violation of Section 4 of the Act. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC). Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Notification u/s 4 -- Publication of notification in two newspapers -- Pleadings -- If the newspapers in which the notification is published were circulating in the locality, but did not have a reasonably wide circulation in the locality, then neither the notification u/s 4(1) nor the consequential acquisition proceedings, will become vitiated automatically -- If the person aggrieved, apart from demonstrating that the two newspapers did not have reasonably wide circulation in the locality, also asserts that as a consequence, he did not have notice of the proposed acquisition that was provided for in Section 4(1) of the Act, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the acquisition to the extent of the land of such person will be vitiated -- But if such assertion is rebutted by the acquiring authority by placing evidence to show that the person concerned had in fact notice (as for example where he participated in the enquiry under section 5A of the Act), the acquisition will not be vitiated. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Civil suit
Mutation proceedings In a Civil suit, observation made in the summary proceedings of the mutation by the revenue authorities starting from the Assistant Collector Ist Grade upto the Financial Commissioner, shall not prejudice the mind of the Civil Court and the Civil Court shall independently decide the suit in accordance with law. Smt. Gurjeet Kaur and others v. Financial Commissioner and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 200 (P&H).

Clubbing of Three khewats

Partition of land All the three khewats do not have a common joint owners, different joint owners are in different khewats -- Held, it would not be appropriate that all the khewats should have been consolidated and should have been clubbed together -- Clubbing of khewats could have been only possible if all the joint owners/co-sharers would have been common in all the khewats. Darshan Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 114 (P&H).

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908)

Order 37 Rule (1)(2) Ejectment of tenant -- Recovery suit Leave to defend -Ejectment order was passed on account of non-payment of rent Suit for recovery of arrears of rent -- A perusal of the application for leave to defend shows that neither the rate of interest nor the amount claimed by the plaintiff-petitioner had been disputed except to allege

that the rent note was forged Held, in the absence of any prima facie material to substantiate that the petitioner had made payment of the amount either by way of rent or mense profits for the period he had occupied the premises, leave to defend granted by the trial court was not justified -- Only plea regarding forged rent note could not be a substantial defence entitling the defendant to leave to defend.Dhrenderpal Gupta v. Mahipal, 2012(1) L.A.R. 171 (P&H).

Comparative merits
Appointment of Lambardar Choice of Collector -- Petitioner has misappropriated the amount of the Cooperative Society of the village and his services were terminated -- Besides this private respondent is an Ex-serviceman and is a middle pass and he had been a member of the Market Committee and he also remained Sarpanch of the village -- He also remained Sarbrah Lambardar of the village for five years and is well conversant with the works of the lambardari Collector found private respondent to be a better candidate for appointment to the post of Lambardar -- It is settled law that the choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly. Harbhagwan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 198 (P&H). Appointment of Lambardar Petitioner is 36 years of age, graduate and diploma holder in computer education, he owns 6 kanal and 11 marlas of land in the village and 32 kanals in another village -- Petitioner further got Fixed Deposits to the tune of Rs. 57 lac and 15 family planning cases Private respondent to the contrary, is 55 years of age, 9th class pass and owns 10 acres of land in the village Private respondent got Fixed Deposits worth Rs. 45,74,000/- and Fixed Deposit to the tune of Rs. 8 lac in his own name; one LIC policy and 9 cases of family planning, he himself has been a Sarpanch for one term, his Mother has been Panch for one term -- Petitioner has been a member of the Block Samiti for 5 years and father of the petitioner also remained Sarpanch of the village Criminal complaint against respondent ended in a compromise u/s 323, 324, 326, 341 and 506 IPC -- Acquittal was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Held, after considering overall merits/ disabilities, respondent has substantially more social standing as compared to the petitioner Private respondents appointment as Lambardar upheld. Bhim Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 162 (P&H). Appointment of Lambardar Private Respondent is having more land, son of deceased Lambardar, is also an ex-serviceman, served in the Army for five years and his character has been found to be exemplary and also remained as Sarbrah Nambardar of the village, who is well conversant with the works of the Lambardar, whereas the reputation of petitioner is not clear as a criminal case has been registered against him -- Petitioner is having less land -Only young age of the petitioner cannot be a ground to appoint him as Lambardar -- Mere fact that a number of persons supported the candidature of the petitioner does not give any right to the petitioner to be appointed as Lambardar Collector appointed petitioner as Lambardar Order upheld. Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 195 (P&H).

Complainant
Right of -- Removal of Panch In pursuance of the complaint made by the complainant and on the basis of reports, the Director removed the Panch Appellate authority accepted the appeal without impleading the complainant as a party Held, since the complainant was the aggrieved party, so the appellate authority slipped into a legal error in accepting the appeal of private respondent, even without issuing notice to complainant, who was a

necessary party -- Matter remitted back to Appellate authority.Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 188 (P&H).

Constructive notice
Notice arising by presumption of law from the existence of certain specified facts and circumstances is constructive or deemed notice -- For example, any person purchasing or obtaining a transfer of an immovable property is deemed to have notice of all transactions relating to such property effected by registered instruments till the date of his acquisition or, where the statute provides for publication of the notification relating to a proposed acquisition of lands in the Gazette and newspapers and by causing public notice of the substance of the notification at convenient places in the locality, but does not provide for actual direct notice, then such provision provides for constructive notice; and on fulfillment of those requirements, all persons interested in the lands proposed for acquisition are deemed to have notice of the proposal regarding acquisition. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Delay and laches

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Challenge to Acquisition of land Award not passed within statutory period -- Writ petition was filed immediately after pronouncement of the award Could not have been non-suited by invoking the rule of laches. R. Indira Saratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 136 (SC). Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 -- Allotment of land Husband of the petitioner had made supreme sacrifice of his life for the country during the Indo-Pak War of 1965 -- Case of the petitioner for allotment of land to her was duly recommended by the concerned Commanding Officer Petitioner is directed to move an application and the same shall be sympathetically considered by the competent authority, without adhering to the technical objection of non-filing of the application and by passing a well-reasoned speaking order, within a period of two months thereafter -- Whether the Government is duty bound to consider the case of petitioner on merits or not? Answer must obviously be in the affirmative. Jagir Kaur v. The State of Punjab, 2012(1) L.A.R. 116 (P&H).

Deposits made in Bank

Lease Tenancy Occupants did not send any communication informing the owner about the deposits nor did the challans showed that the deposits were being made towards rent -- There were no rent receipts from the appellants -- Respondents did not choose to send the rents by postal money orders -- There is no explanation as to non-deposit of the alleged rents for the earlier period Held, deposits were not bonafide.Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Another v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 120 (SC).

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954)

Section 33 -- Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), Section 2(1-A) -- Evacuee property Allotment of land -- As per the Jamabandi, the land in question has been recorded under the ownership of the Central Government, which indicates that it is not the package deal property -- Appellant was unable to show any document, indicating that the property in question was a package deal property Appellant is not entitled for allotment

of the same under the Punjab Package Act.Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 207 (P&H DB).

Disqualification
Appointment of Lambardar Father was defaulter Held, for the fault of father, he cannot be deprived of his right and his merit cannot be ignored on this ground alone. Jai Bhagwan v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 204 (P&H). Appointment of Lambardar For the fault of the family members, a person claiming his right in his individual capacity cannot be deprived of those rights. Jai Bhagwan v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 204 (P&H).

Duties of Lambardar
A Lambardar is required to know the villagers and other details in the estate for performance/ discharge of his duties -- A Lambardar is required to remain present, by and large at all hours, in the village for discharge of his duties -- Duties involve active interaction with the villagers/residents of the area -- Headman/ Lambardar is required to be aware of the deaths in the village for various reports to be made -- He is required to be aware of the pensioners residing in the estate; marriage/ re-marriage of a female drawing family pension residing in the estate or in case any such person goes absent from estate -- He is also required to be aware of the encroachments on roads or Government buildings within the boundaries of estate -- He is required to conduct crop inspections so as to assist the Collector -- He is further required to attend the summons of authorities having jurisdiction in the estate and assist all officers of the Government in execution of their public duties. Bhim Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 162 (P&H).

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949)

Section 13-B NRI landlord Other NRI/Co-owner used his rights as NRI Effect of -Leave to defend -- Whether an NRI landlord, who is a co-owner in two different properties which are in occupation of the tenants, can maintain a petition u/s 13-B of the Act after filing of the petition by his co-owners as NRI in respect of the other property? Sufficient grounds for granting leave to defend with regard to the maintainability of eviction petition as NRI landlords. Bachan Kaurs case 2011 (3) L.A.R. 263 (P&H DB) relied. Harbhajan Singh v. Sukhjinder Singh Aulak @ Billa and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 145 (P&H).

Educational qualification
Appointment of Lambardar -- No qualification prescribed under the rules -- There is not much difference in 10+2 or Matric. Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 132 (P&H).

Election of Panch
Election result Jurisdiction of Returning Officer -- Returning Officer did not have the jurisdiction to direct the Presiding Officer to change the election result already duly announced by him by way of election result. Kulwant Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 179 (P&H). Reservation of Seats -- Category/reservation of seats of Panches already notified before elections, cannot possibly be subsequently changed after the completion of election process and declaration of the result. Kulwant Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 179 (P&H).

Election result
Election of Panch -- Jurisdiction of Returning Officer -- Returning Officer did not have the jurisdiction to direct the Presiding Officer to change the election result already duly announced by him by way of election result. Kulwant Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 179 (P&H).

Jurisdiction of Presiding officer

Presiding Officer did not have the jurisdiction/power to change the result, by means of election result at the direction of Returning Officer -- Same is not only illegal, but against the statutory provisions of law, as well and cannot legally be sustained. Kulwant Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 179 (P&H).

Embezzlement of Gram Panchayat fund

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 Recovery from ex-Sarpanch Opportunity of hearing -- By letter ex-Sarpanch was directed to pay an amount, which was kept excessive cash in hand, by him during the period from January 1993 to September, 2010 -- No material, muchless cogent, on record to suggest that any proper inquiry was conducted, after providing the opportunity, as contemplated u/s 216 of the Act -- Moreover, the impugned letter have been issued, without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to him, which renders it nullity -- Impugned letter cannot legally be sustained. Gurmail Chand (ExSarpanch) v. The State of Punjab & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 166 (P&H).

Evacuee property
Allotment of land -- As per the Jamabandi, the land in question has been recorded under the ownership of the Central Government, which indicates that it is not the package deal property -- Appellant was unable to show any document, indicating that the property in question was a package deal property Appellant is not entitled for allotment of the same under the Punjab Package Act. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 207 (P&H DB).

F.I.R.
Appointment of Lambardar -- Contention that private respondent is not eligible for appointment as Lambardar since a criminal case was registered against him u/s 323, 324 and 34 of the IPC Held, registration of FIR is to set the law in motion -- Those offences are compoundable and the case has been compromised and challan has not been presented, so the contention is rejected. Harbhagwan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 198 (P&H).

Facts
Payment of rent -- Question of law -- High Court did not interfere on the ground that no question of law was involved -- It failed to notice that the inferences and legal effect from proved facts is a question of law -- High Court order is unsustainable.Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Another v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 120 (SC).

Father was defaulter

Appointment of Lambardar Disqualification -- Held, for the fault of father, he cannot be deprived of his right and his merit cannot be ignored on this ground alone. Jai Bhagwan v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 204 (P&H).

Implied notice
If from the facts it can be inferred that a party knew about the subject matter of the notice, knowledge is imputed by implied notice For example, if the purpose of the notice is to require a party to appear before an authority on a particular date, even though such a notice is not personally served on him, if the person appears before the authority on that date or participates in the subsequent proceedings, then the person can be said to have implied notice. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Instrument of partition
Partition of land Finalisation of -- Private respondents are subsequent vendees, they had purchased the land after partition of the land -- Mutation has been sanctioned on the basis of instrument of partition -- Civil Court in appeal upheld the order of partition also Held, there was no occasion for the Financial Commissioner to set aside the orders of the revenue authorities. Faqir Singh and others v. Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 134 (P&H).

Joint land
Partition of land -- Purchase of specific Khasra Effect of -- Even though the petitioner has purchased a specific khasra numbers from one of the co-sharers, the same will be deemed to have been purchased as share in the joint land in question that is why the partition proceedings are permitted under the provisions of the law -- Long standing possession over the property cannot be deemed to be possession for all times to come. Lichhmi v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 193 (P&H).

Jurisdiction of Collector
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Reduction of lease period Collector came to a definite conclusion that the auction was conducted without any proper munadi -- At the time of auction, even BDPO was also not present, his signatures were obtained lateron -- Collector decreased the period of lease from 8 years to 3 years and ordered that if the petitioner is ready to take the pond on Patta at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/per year after 3 years then he should deposit its th in the Panchayat Department, after three years Held, period of lease has been reduced keeping in view the facts of the case and interest of the Gram Panchayat -- Under section 10-A of the Act, AC 1st Grade is empowered to cancel the lease or vary the terms thereof unconditionally or subject to such condition as he may think fit -- Therefore, it cannot be said that reduction of lease period is without jurisdiction. Jaibir v. District Collector, Bhiwani & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 169 (P&H DB).

Jurisdiction of Presiding officer

Election result Presiding Officer did not have the jurisdiction/power to change the result, by means of election result at the direction of Returning Officer -- Same is not only illegal, but against the statutory provisions of law, as well and cannot legally be

sustained. Kulwant Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 179 (P&H).

Jurisdiction of Returning Officer

Election of Panch -- Election result Returning Officer did not have the jurisdiction to direct the Presiding Officer to change the election result already duly announced by him by way of election result. Kulwant Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 179 (P&H).

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894)

Section 4(1) Notification u/s 4 -- Publication of notification in two newspapers -- Object and purpose is to provide for publication of the preliminary notification in two daily newspapers having reasonably wide circulation in the locality so that people (persons interested) in that locality may become aware of the proposals for acquisition. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC). Section 4(1) Notification u/s 4 -- Publication of notification in two newspapers -Circulation of newspaper -- If there is failure to publish in two daily newspapers or if the publication is in two newspapers that have no circulation at all in the locality, without anything more, the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act and the consequential acquisition proceedings will be vitiated, on the ground of non-compliance with an essential condition of section 4(1) of the Act. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC). Section 4(1) Notification u/s 4 -- Publication of notification in two newspapers -Circulation of newspaper -- If the two newspapers carrying the publication of the notification have reasonably wide circulation in the locality, then the requirements of section 4(1) are complied with -- In that event, neither the notification u/s 4(1), nor the consequential acquisition proceedings would be open to challenge, on the ground of violation of Section 4 of the Act. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC). Section 4(1) Notification u/s 4 -- Publication of notification in two newspapers -Circulation of newspaper Pleadings -- If the newspapers in which the notification is published were circulating in the locality, but did not have a reasonably wide circulation in the locality, then neither the notification u/s 4(1) nor the consequential acquisition proceedings, will become vitiated automatically -- If the person aggrieved, apart from demonstrating that the two newspapers did not have reasonably wide circulation in the locality, also asserts that as a consequence, he did not have notice of the proposed acquisition that was provided for in Section 4(1) of the Act, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the acquisition to the extent of the land of such person will be vitiated -- But if such assertion is rebutted by the acquiring authority by placing evidence to show that the person concerned had in fact notice (as for example where he participated in the enquiry under section 5A of the Act), the acquisition will not be vitiated. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC). Section 4(1) Notification u/s 4 -- Publication of notification in two newspapers -- If the person challenging the acquisition is able to establish that the notifications weredeliberately and with malafides, published in newspapers having negligible circulation, to avoid notice to

the persons concerned, then section 4(1) will be violated. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC). Section 4(1) Notification u/s 4 -- Notice -- Acquiring authority need not prove actual notice of the proposal to acquire u/s 4(1) of the Act, to the person challenging the acquisition -- Such notice can also be by way of implied notice or constructive notice.The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC). Section 4,6,23,24 Acquisition of land -- Market Value -- Sale instance -- Sale deeds executed in favour of the family members or persons known to the claimants just about two months prior to the issuance of the notification u/s 4(1) are liable to be ignored. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Section 4,6,23,24 Acquisition of land -- Market Value -- Sale instance -- Vendor or vendee of sale deed had not been examined to prove them in Court -- Sale instances cannot be rejected on that ground. Cement Corporation of Indias case (2004)8 SCC 270 relied. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Section 4,6,23,24 Acquisition of land -- Market Value -- Sale instance Law of deduction Not possible to state precisely the exact deduction which could be made Deduction is to be applied on account of carrying out development activities like providing roads or civic amenities such as electricity, water etc. when the land has been acquired for construction of residential, commercial or institutional projects -- It shall also be applied where the sale instances (exemplars) relate to smaller pieces of land and in comparison the acquisition relates to a large tract of land -- Deduction can also be applied on account of wastage of land -- It is neither possible nor appropriate to stricto sensu define a class of cases where the Court would not apply any deduction -- The cases where the acquired land itself is fully developed and has all essential amenities, before acquisition, for the purpose for which it is acquired requiring no additional expenditure for its development, falls under the purview of cases of no deduction'. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Section 4,6,23,24 Acquisition of land -- Market Value -- Sale instance of smaller size of land Sale instances even of smaller plots could be considered for determining the market value of a larger chunk of land with some deduction unless, there was comparability in potential, utilisation, amenities and infrastructure with hardly any distinction. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Section 4,6,23,24 Acquisition of land -- Market Value -- Plotting has been done only on part of the acquired land and the land is surrounded by colonies like ITBP etc. but, there is no evidence to show that the acquired land itself is developed and is having all the required facilities and amenities -- It may be a case where less deduction may be applied but certainly it is not a case of no deduction' -- Deduction of 10% from the market value on account of development charges and other possible expenditures would be justifiable and called for in the facts and circumstances of the present case.Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Section 4,6,23,24 Acquisition of land -- Market Value Compensation payable to the claimants has to be computed in terms of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act -- Market value of the land has to be determined at the date of the publication of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act, after taking into consideration what is stated under Sections 23(1), 23(1A), 23(2) and excluding the considerations stated under Section 24 of the Act -- It is not possible to fix the

compensation with exactitude or arithmetic accuracy -- Court may have to take recourse to some guesswork while determining the fair market value of the land and the consequential amount of compensation. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Section 4,6,23,24 Acquisition of land -- Market Value Principle of guesstimation -Principle of guesstimation will have no application to the case of no evidence'-- This principle is only intended to bridge the gap between the calculated compensation and the actual compensation Certain principles controlling the application of guesstimate are : (a) Wherever the evidence produced by the parties is not sufficient to determine the compensation with exactitude, this principle can be resorted to -- (b) Discretion of the court in applying guesswork to the facts of a given case is not unfettered but has to be reasonable and should have a connection to the data on record produced by the parties by way of evidence. Further, this entire exercise has to be within the limitations specified under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act and cannot be made in detriment thereto.Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Section 4,6,23,24 Acquisition of land -- Market Value Small sale instance -Deduction from -- Land acquired had the potential of being developed for residential or institutional purposes, the same was acquired for construction of a Government Polytechnic Institute Sale instance is situated at a distance of 1-1/2 furlong from the acquired land cannot be said to be incomparable sale instance, i.e. it has to be taken as a comparable sale instance Value of sale of small pieces of land can be taken into consideration for determining even the value of a large tract of land 10% deduction is made from the estimated market value of acquired land. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Section 6, 11-A Acquisition of land Stay of proceedings Statutory period for Award -- If any action or proceeding required to be taken after the issue of declaration u/s 6 is stayed by a Court, the entire period of stay will get excluded in calculating the period of two years within which an award is required to be made by the Collector -- Once the stay order passed by a Court is vacated or ceases to operate, the clog put on the running of the period specified in the main section is removed. R. Indira Saratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 136 (SC). Section 6, 11-A Acquisition of land Stay of proceedings Statutory period for Award -- Time taken in supply of copy of the judgment cannot extend the period of two years specified in Section 11A. R. Indira Saratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 136 (SC). Section 6, 11-A Acquisition of land Challenge to -- Delay and laches Award not passed within statutory period -- Writ petition was filed immediately after pronouncement of the award Could not have been non-suited by invoking the rule of laches. R. Indira Saratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 136 (SC).

Lease
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Reduction of lease period Jurisdiction of Collector -- Collector came to a definite conclusion that the auction was conducted without any proper munadi -- At the time of auction, even BDPO was also not present, his signatures were obtained lateron -- Collector decreased the period of lease from 8 years to 3 years and ordered that if the petitioner is ready to take the pond on Patta at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per year after 3 years then he should deposit its th in the Panchayat

Department, after three years Held, period of lease has been reduced keeping in view the facts of the case and interest of the Gram Panchayat -- Under section 10-A of the Act, AC 1st Grade is empowered to cancel the lease or vary the terms thereof unconditionally or subject to such condition as he may think fit -- Therefore, it cannot be said that reduction of lease period is without jurisdiction. Jaibir v. District Collector, Bhiwani & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 169 (P&H DB). Tenancy Deposits made in Bank -- Occupants did not send any communication informing the owner about the deposits nor did the challans showed that the deposits were being made towards rent -- There were no rent receipts from the appellants -- Respondents did not choose to send the rents by postal money orders -- There is no explanation as to non-deposit of the alleged rents for the earlier period Held, deposits were not bonafide. Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Another v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 120 (SC). Tenancy -- Electoral Roll will not show whether a person is occupying a premises as a tenant or as a licencee -- It may at best show that the person was residing in the premises -Inference drawn by the court from the electoral roll, that respondent was not a mere licencee, is totally illogical and unsustainable. Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Another v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 120 (SC). Tenancy -- No lease deed or tenancy agreement to evidence the tenancy; nor were there any receipts for payment of any rent Owner had given evidence on oath that respondents were gratuitous licensees and they had never paid any rent or other charges and his evidence was corroborated by a neighbour Held, the burden was on the occupants to establish that they were tenants and not licensees. Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Another v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 120 (SC).

Leave to defend
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 -- NRI landlord Other NRI/Co-owner used his rights as NRI Effect of -- Whether an NRI landlord, who is a co-owner in two different properties which are in occupation of the tenants, can maintain a petition u/s 13-B of the Act after filing of the petition by his co-owners as NRI in respect of the other property? Sufficient grounds for granting leave to defend with regard to the maintainability of eviction petition as NRI landlords. Bachan Kaurs case 2011 (3) L.A.R. 263 (P&H DB) relied. Harbhajan Singh v. Sukhjinder Singh Aulak @ Billa and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 145 (P&H). C.P.C. -- Ejectment of tenant -- Recovery suit Ejectment order was passed on account of non-payment of rent Suit for recovery of arrears of rent -- A perusal of the application for leave to defend shows that neither the rate of interest nor the amount claimed by the plaintiffpetitioner had been disputed except to allege that the rent note was forged Held, in the absence of any prima facie material to substantiate that the petitioner had made payment of the amount either by way of rent or mense profits for the period he had occupied the premises, leave to defend granted by the trial court was not justified -- Only plea regarding forged rent note could not be a substantial defence entitling the defendant to leave to defend. Dhrenderpal Gupta v. Mahipal, 2012(1) L.A.R. 171 (P&H).

Market Value
Acquisition of land -- Plotting has been done only on part of the acquired land and the land is surrounded by colonies like ITBP etc. but, there is no evidence to show that the

acquired land itself is developed and is having all the required facilities and amenities -- It may be a case where less deduction may be applied but certainly it is not a case of no deduction' -- Deduction of 10% from the market value on account of development charges and other possible expenditures would be justifiable and called for in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Acquisition of land -- Principle of guesstimation -- Principle of guesstimation will have no application to the case of no evidence'-- This principle is only intended to bridge the gap between the calculated compensation and the actual compensation Certain principles controlling the application of guesstimate are : (a) Wherever the evidence produced by the parties is not sufficient to determine the compensation with exactitude, this principle can be resorted to -- (b) Discretion of the court in applying guesswork to the facts of a given case is not unfettered but has to be reasonable and should have a connection to the data on record produced by the parties by way of evidence. Further, this entire exercise has to be within the limitations specified under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act and cannot be made in detriment thereto. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Acquisition of land -- Sale instance Law of deduction Not possible to state precisely the exact deduction which could be made Deduction is to be applied on account of carrying out development activities like providing roads or civic amenities such as electricity, water etc. when the land has been acquired for construction of residential, commercial or institutional projects -- It shall also be applied where the sale instances (exemplars) relate to smaller pieces of land and in comparison the acquisition relates to a large tract of land -Deduction can also be applied on account of wastage of land -- It is neither possible nor appropriate to stricto sensu define a class of cases where the Court would not apply any deduction -- The cases where the acquired land itself is fully developed and has all essential amenities, before acquisition, for the purpose for which it is acquired requiring no additional expenditure for its development, falls under the purview of cases of no deduction'. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Acquisition of land -- Sale instance -- Sale deeds executed in favour of the family members or persons known to the claimants just about two months prior to the issuance of the notification u/s 4(1) are liable to be ignored. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Acquisition of land -- Sale instance -- Vendor or vendee of sale deed had not been examined to prove them in Court -- Sale instances cannot be rejected on that ground.Cement Corporation of Indias case (2004)8 SCC 270 relied. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Acquisition of land -- Sale instance of smaller size of land Sale instances even of smaller plots could be considered for determining the market value of a larger chunk of land with some deduction unless, there was comparability in potential, utilisation, amenities and infrastructure with hardly any distinction. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Acquisition of land -- Small sale instance -- Deduction from -- Land acquired had the potential of being developed for residential or institutional purposes, the same was acquired for construction of a Government Polytechnic Institute Sale instance is situated at a distance of 1-1/2 furlong from the acquired land cannot be said to be incomparable sale instance, i.e. it has to be taken as a comparable sale instance Value of sale of small pieces of land can be taken into consideration for determining even the value of a large tract of land

 10% deduction is made from the estimated market value of acquired land. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr.,2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Compensation payable to the claimants has to be computed in terms of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act -- Market value of the land has to be determined at the date of the publication of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act, after taking into consideration what is stated under Sections 23(1), 23(1A), 23(2) and excluding the considerations stated under Section 24 of the Act -- It is not possible to fix the compensation with exactitude or arithmetic accuracy -- Court may have to take recourse to some guesswork while determining the fair market value of the land and the consequential amount of compensation. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Mutation
Purchase of Specific Khasra -- Partition of land -- Contention that specific khasra number has been transferred and the mutation should have been sanctioned by the revenue authorities with respect to that specific Khasra number only Held, contention is not sustainable. Daljit Singh and others v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 143 (P&H).

Mutation proceedings
Challenge to Civil suit -- In a Civil suit, observation made in the summary proceedings of the mutation by the revenue authorities starting from the Assistant Collector Ist Grade upto the Financial Commissioner, shall not prejudice the mind of the Civil Court and the Civil Court shall independently decide the suit in accordance with law. Smt. Gurjeet Kaur and others v. Financial Commissioner and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 200 (P&H). Res-judicata -- Mutation does not confer any title -- Finding recorded during the mutation proceedings while sanctioning or rejecting the same in favour of either of the parties in a suit for declaration of title or possession on the basis of sale deed etc., does not operate as res judicata. Smt. Gurjeet Kaur and others v. Financial Commissioner and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 200 (P&H).

Non-reply of Notice
Adverse inference -- In view of the pending litigation, non issue of the replies to the notices cannot be treated as an admission of the averments in the notices.Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Another v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 120 (SC).

Notice
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Notification u/s 4 -- Acquiring authority need not prove actual notice of the proposal to acquire u/s 4(1) of the Act, to the person challenging the acquisition -- Such notice can also be by way of implied notice or constructive notice.The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC). Non-reply of Adverse inference -- In view of the pending litigation, non issue of the replies to the notices cannot be treated as an admission of the averments in the notices.Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Another v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 120 (SC).

NRI landlord
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 -- Other NRI/Co-owner used his rights as NRI Effect of -- Leave to defend -- Whether an NRI landlord, who is a co-owner in two different properties which are in occupation of the tenants, can maintain a petition u/s 13-B of the Act after filing of the petition by his co-owners as NRI in respect of the other property? Sufficient grounds for granting leave to defend with regard to the maintainability of eviction petition as NRI landlords. Bachan Kaurs case 2011 (3) L.A.R. 263 (P&H DB) relied. Harbhajan Singh v. Sukhjinder Singh Aulak @ Billa and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 145 (P&H).

Opportunity of hearing
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 Embezzlement of Gram Panchayat fund -- Recovery from ex-Sarpanch By letter ex-Sarpanch was directed to pay an amount, which was kept excessive cash in hand, by him during the period from January 1993 to September, 2010 -No material, muchless cogent, on record to suggest that any proper inquiry was conducted, after providing the opportunity, as contemplated u/s 216 of the Act -- Moreover, the impugned letter have been issued, without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to him, which renders it nullity -- Impugned letter cannot legally be sustained. Gurmail Chand (Ex-Sarpanch) v. The State of Punjab & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 166 (P&H).

Package deal property

Package deal property is surplus evacuee property taken over by the State Government under the letter of the Central Government, excluding such property as may be required for transfer or allotment, by way of compensation to a displaced person, as defined in the Displaced Persons Act and rural agricultural land required for similar allotment to a displaced person of non-Punjabi extraction in pursuance of the directions of the Central Government given under Section 32 of the Displaced Persons Act.Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 207 (P&H DB).

Partition of land
Instrument of partition Finalisation of -- Private respondents are subsequent vendees, they had purchased the land after partition of the land -- Mutation has been sanctioned on the basis of instrument of partition -- Civil Court in appeal upheld the order of partition also Held, there was no occasion for the Financial Commissioner to set aside the orders of the revenue authorities. Faqir Singh and others v. Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 134 (P&H). Joint land Purchase of specific Khasra Effect of -- Even though the petitioner has purchased a specific khasra numbers from one of the co-sharers, the same will be deemed to have been purchased as share in the joint land in question that is why the partition proceedings are permitted under the provisions of the law -- Long standing possession over the property cannot be deemed to be possession for all times to come.Lichhmi v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 193 (P&H). Purchase of Specific Khasra -- Mutation Contention that specific khasra number has been transferred and the mutation should have been sanctioned by the revenue authorities with respect to that specific Khasra number only Held, contention is not sustainable -- Out of the joint khewat even sale of specific khasra number will be deemed to be sale of share

which is always subject to partition. Daljit Singh and others v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 143 (P&H). Three khewats -- Clubbing of -- All the three khewats do not have a common joint owners, different joint owners are in different khewats -- Held, it would not be appropriate that all the khewats should have been consolidated and should have been clubbed together -Clubbing of khewats could have been only possible if all the joint owners/co-sharers would have been common in all the khewats. Darshan Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 114 (P&H).

Pleadings
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Notification u/s 4 -- Publication of notification in two newspapers -- Circulation of newspaper If the newspapers in which the notification is published were circulating in the locality, but did not have a reasonably wide circulation in the locality, then neither the notification u/s 4(1) nor the consequential acquisition proceedings, will become vitiated automatically -- If the person aggrieved, apart from demonstrating that the two newspapers did not have reasonably wide circulation in the locality, also asserts that as a consequence, he did not have notice of the proposed acquisition that was provided for in Section 4(1) of the Act, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the acquisition to the extent of the land of such person will be vitiated -- But if such assertion is rebutted by the acquiring authority by placing evidence to show that the person concerned had in fact notice (as for example where he participated in the enquiry under section 5A of the Act), the acquisition will not be vitiated. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Principle of guesstimation
Acquisition of land -- Market Value Principle of guesstimation will have no application to the case of no evidence'-- This principle is only intended to bridge the gap between the calculated compensation and the actual compensation Certain principles controlling the application of guesstimate are : (a) Wherever the evidence produced by the parties is not sufficient to determine the compensation with exactitude, this principle can be resorted to -(b) Discretion of the court in applying guesswork to the facts of a given case is not unfettered but has to be reasonable and should have a connection to the data on record produced by the parties by way of evidence. Further, this entire exercise has to be within the limitations specified under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act and cannot be made in detriment thereto. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Publication of notification in two newspapers

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Notification u/s 4 -- Object and purpose is to provide for publication of the preliminary notification in two daily newspapers having reasonably wide circulation in the locality so that people (persons interested) in that locality may become aware of the proposals for acquisition. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC). Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Notification u/s 4 -- Circulation of newspaper -- If there is failure to publish in two daily newspapers or if the publication is in two newspapers that have no circulation at all in the locality, without anything more, the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act and the consequential acquisition proceedings will be vitiated, on the ground of noncompliance with an essential condition of section 4(1) of the Act. The Special Deputy

Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC). Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Notification u/s 4 -- Circulation of newspaper -- If the two newspapers carrying the publication of the notification have reasonably wide circulation in the locality, then the requirements of section 4(1) are complied with -- In that event, neither the notification u/s 4(1), nor the consequential acquisition proceedings would be open to challenge, on the ground of violation of Section 4 of the Act. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC). Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Notification u/s 4 -- Circulation of newspaper Pleadings -If the newspapers in which the notification is published were circulating in the locality, but did not have a reasonably wide circulation in the locality, then neither the notification u/s 4(1) nor the consequential acquisition proceedings, will become vitiated automatically -- If the person aggrieved, apart from demonstrating that the two newspapers did not have reasonably wide circulation in the locality, also asserts that as a consequence, he did not have notice of the proposed acquisition that was provided for in Section 4(1) of the Act, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the acquisition to the extent of the land of such person will be vitiated -- But if such assertion is rebutted by the acquiring authority by placing evidence to show that the person concerned had in fact notice (as for example where he participated in the enquiry under section 5A of the Act), the acquisition will not be vitiated. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC). Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Notification u/s 4 -- If the person challenging the acquisition is able to establish that the notifications were deliberately and with malafides, published in newspapers having negligible circulation, to avoid notice to the persons concerned, then section 4(1) will be violated. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. v. J. Sivaprakasam & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 151 (SC).

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887)

Section 111, 116 Partition of land Three khewats -- Clubbing of -- All the three khewats do not have a common joint owners, different joint owners are in different khewats -Held, it would not be appropriate that all the khewats should have been consolidated and should have been clubbed together -- Clubbing of khewats could have been only possible if all the joint owners/co-sharers would have been common in all the khewats. Darshan Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 114 (P&H). Section 111, 121 Partition of land -- Joint land Purchase of specific Khasra Effect of -- Land in question is a joint -- Even though the petitioner has purchased a specific khasra numbers from one of the co-sharers, the same will be deemed to have been purchased as share in the joint land in question that is why the partition proceedings are permitted under the provisions of the law -- Long standing possession over the property cannot be deemed to be possession for all times to come. Lichhmi v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 193 (P&H). Section 13, 15 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 Appointment of Lambardar Comparative merits Choice of Collector -- Petitioner has misappropriated the amount of the Cooperative Society of the village and his services were terminated -- Besides this private respondent is an Ex-serviceman and is a middle pass and he had been a member of the Market Committee and he also remained Sarpanch of the village -- He also remained Sarbrah Lambardar of the village for five years and is well conversant with the works of the

lambardari Collector found private respondent to be a better candidate for appointment to the post of Lambardar -- It is settled law that the choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly. Harbhagwan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 198 (P&H). Section 13,15 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Choice of Collector -- Choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly, it can only be set aside if there is any perversity or illegality. Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 132 (P&H). Section 13,15 Choice of Collector -- Choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly unless there is perversity in the order passed by the Collector -- Collector has appreciated the comparative merit of the candidates and has come to a conclusion that private respondent is a more suitable and meritorious candidate for appointment as Lambardar -Commissioner did not find any perversity in the order of the Collector, inspite of that the appointment was set aside -- Financial Commissioner restored the order of Collector In the judicial review, the power of High Court is limited to the extent of looking into the perversity, illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the competent authority -- Held, there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order of the Financial Commissioner Writ dismissed. Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 202 (P&H). Section 34 Mutation proceedings Res-judicata -- Mutation does not confer any title -Finding recorded during the mutation proceedings while sanctioning or rejecting the same in favour of either of the parties in a suit for declaration of title or possession on the basis of sale deed etc., does not operate as res judicata. Smt. Gurjeet Kaur and others v. Financial Commissioner and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 200 (P&H). Section 34 Mutation proceedings Challenge to Civil suit -- In a Civil suit, observation made in the summary proceedings of the mutation by the revenue authorities starting from the Assistant Collector Ist Grade upto the Financial Commissioner, shall not prejudice the mind of the Civil Court and the Civil Court shall independently decide the suit in accordance with law. Smt. Gurjeet Kaur and others v. Financial Commissioner and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 200 (P&H). Section 34, 111, 121 Partition of land Instrument of partition Finalisation of -Private respondents are subsequent vendees, they had purchased the land after partition of the land -- Mutation has been sanctioned on the basis of instrument of partition -- Civil Court in appeal upheld the order of partition also Held, there was no occasion for the Financial Commissioner to set aside the orders of the revenue authorities. Faqir Singh and others v. Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 134 (P&H). Section 34.111,121 Purchase of Specific Khasra -- Mutation Partition of land -Contention that specific khasra number has been transferred and the mutation should have been sanctioned by the revenue authorities with respect to that specific Khasra number only Held, contention is not sustainable -- Out of the joint khewat even sale of specific khasra number will be deemed to be sale of share which is always subject to partition. Daljit Singh and others v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 143 (P&H).

Punjab Land Revenue Rules

Rule 15 Appointment of Lambardar Disqualification -- Father was defaulter Held, for the fault of father, he cannot be deprived of his right and his merit cannot be ignored on this ground alone. Jai Bhagwan v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 204 (P&H).

Rule 15 Appointment of Lambardar Disqualification For the fault of the family members, a person claiming his right in his individual capacity cannot be deprived of those rights. Jai Bhagwan v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 204 (P&H). Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Educational qualification -- No qualification prescribed under the rules -- There is not much difference in 10+2 or Matric. Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 132 (P&H). Rule 15 Appointment of Lambardar -- F.I.R. Effect of Contention that private respondent is not eligible for appointment as Lambardar since a criminal case was registered against him u/s 323, 324 and 34 of the IPC Held, registration of FIR is to set the law in motion -- Those offences are compoundable and the case has been compromised and challan has not been presented, so the contention is rejected.Harbhagwan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 198 (P&H). Rule 15 Appointment of Lambardar Age Experience with father -- Contention that private respondent has made a false statement with regard to his experience and working with his Tau Held, in the villages it is a common practice that an aged man is accompanied by younger male member in the family -- If such statement is made, such cannot be treated as misleading -- Contention that at the time of death of previous Lambardar, private respondent was about 12 years of age and this will affect merit qua the appointment of respondent No.5 -- Contention is rejected. Jai Bhagwan v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 204 (P&H). Rule 15 Appointment of Lambardar Comparative merits -- Private Respondent is having more land, son of deceased Lambardar, is also an ex-serviceman, served in the Army for five years and his character has been found to be exemplary and also remained as Sarbrah Nambardar of the village, who is well conversant with the works of the Lambardar, whereas the reputation of petitioner is not clear as a criminal case has been registered against him -- Petitioner is having less land -- Only young age of the petitioner cannot be a ground to appoint him as Lambardar -- Mere fact that a number of persons supported the candidature of the petitioner does not give any right to the petitioner to be appointed as Lambardar Collector appointed petitioner as Lambardar Order upheld. Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 195 (P&H). Rule 15 Appointment of Lambardar Recommendation of Revenue Authorities Remand by Commissioner Effect of -- Earlier recommendations made by the A.C. IInd Grade and Ist Grade are insignificant, since the Divisional Commissioner, had set aside the order of the Collector appointing petitioner as Lambardar -- Only the subsequent order after the remand is to be taken into consideration. Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 195 (P&H). Rule 15 Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar Comparative merits Choice of Collector -- Petitioner has misappropriated the amount of the Cooperative Society of the village and his services were terminated -Besides this private respondent is an Ex-serviceman and is a middle pass and he had been a member of the Market Committee and he also remained Sarpanch of the village -- He also remained Sarbrah Lambardar of the village for five years and is well conversant with the works of the lambardari Collector found private respondent to be a better candidate for appointment to the post of Lambardar -- It is settled law that the choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly. Harbhagwan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 198 (P&H).

Rule 15 (c),(d),(e),(f) and (g) Appointment of Lambardar Qualification -- Personal influence, character, services rendered to the State by himself or by the family, service rendered to the community and development programmes are relevant considerations for appointment of a Lambardar. Bhim Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 162 (P&H). Rule 15, 20 -- Appointment of Lambardar Comparative merits -- Petitioner is 36 years of age, graduate and diploma holder in computer education, he owns 6 kanal and 11 marlas of land in the village and 32 kanals in another village -- Petitioner further got Fixed Deposits to the tune of Rs. 57 lac and 15 family planning cases Private respondent to the contrary, is 55 years of age, 9th class pass and owns 10 acres of land in the village Private respondent got Fixed Deposits worth Rs. 45,74,000/- and Fixed Deposit to the tune of Rs. 8 lac in his own name; one LIC policy and 9 cases of family planning, he himself has been a Sarpanch for one term, his Mother has been Panch for one term -- Petitioner has been a member of the Block Samiti for 5 years and father of the petitioner also remained Sarpanch of the village Criminal complaint against respondent ended in a compromise u/s 323, 324, 326, 341 and 506 IPC -- Acquittal was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Held, after considering overall merits/ disabilities, respondent has substantially more social standing as compared to the petitioner Private respondents appointment as Lambardar upheld. Bhim Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 162 (P&H). Rule 15, 20 -- Appointment of Lambardar Qualification Duties of Lambardar -- A Lambardar is required to know the villagers and other details in the estate for performance/ discharge of his duties -- A Lambardar is required to remain present, by and large at all hours, in the village for discharge of his duties -- Duties involve active interaction with the villagers/residents of the area -- Headman/ Lambardar is required to be aware of the deaths in the village for various reports to be made -- He is required to be aware of the pensioners residing in the estate; marriage/ re-marriage of a female drawing family pension residing in the estate or in case any such person goes absent from estate -- He is also required to be aware of the encroachments on roads or Government buildings within the boundaries of estate -- He is required to conduct crop inspections so as to assist the Collector -- He is further required to attend the summons of authorities having jurisdiction in the estate and assist all officers of the Government in execution of their public duties. Bhim Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 162 (P&H).

Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 (21 of 1976)

Section 2(1-A) -- Package deal property -- Package deal property is surplus evacuee property taken over by the State Government under the letter of the Central Government, excluding such property as may be required for transfer or allotment, by way of compensation to a displaced person, as defined in the Displaced Persons Act and rural agricultural land required for similar allotment to a displaced person of non-Punjabi extraction in pursuance of the directions of the Central Government given under Section 32 of the Displaced Persons Act. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 207 (P&H DB). Section 2(1-A) -- Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (44 of 1954), Section 33 -- Evacuee property Allotment of land -- As per the Jamabandi, the land in question has been recorded under the ownership of the Central Government, which indicates that it is not the package deal property -- Appellant was unable to show any document, indicating that the property in question was a package deal property Appellant is

not entitled for allotment of the same under the Punjab Package Act. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 207 (P&H DB).

Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976

Rule 3 Press Note Unauthorised occupation -- Khasra Girdawari Change in -Financial Commissioner, has rightly come to the conclusion that the authorities, while determining the date of possession have to rely upon the khasra girdawari, which exist on the date of issuance of the Press Note -- Neither an authority can be permitted to rely upon the corrected khasra girdawari nor such an argument could have been accepted that possession of the appellant was much prior to the cut off date. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 207 (P&H DB). Rule 4 Allotment of land Delay and laches -- Husband of the petitioner had made supreme sacrifice of his life for the country during the Indo-Pak War of 1965 -- Case of the petitioner for allotment of land to her was duly recommended by the concerned Commanding Officer Petitioner is directed to move an application and the same shall be sympathetically considered by the competent authority, without adhering to the technical objection of nonfiling of the application and by passing a well-reasoned speaking order, within a period of two months thereafter -- Whether the Government is duty bound to consider the case of petitioner on merits or not? Answer must obviously be in the affirmative. Jagir Kaur v. The State of Punjab, 2012(1) L.A.R. 116 (P&H).

Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994

Rule 33(2)(2) Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 66 -Election of Panch -- Election result Jurisdiction of Returning Officer -- Returning Officer did not have the jurisdiction to direct the Presiding Officer to change the election result already duly announced by him by way of election result. Kulwant Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 179 (P&H). Rule 33(2)(2) Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 66 -Election result Jurisdiction of Presiding officer -- Presiding Officer did not have the jurisdiction/power to change the result, by means of election result at the direction of Returning Officer -- Same is not only illegal, but against the statutory provisions of law, as well and cannot legally be sustained. Kulwant Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 179 (P&H).

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994)

Section 11,12 Election of Panch Reservation of Seats -- Category/reservation of seats of Panches already notified before elections, cannot possibly be subsequently changed after the completion of election process and declaration of the result. Kulwant Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 179 (P&H). Section 20 Removal of Panch -- Director removed Panch on two counts that he and other Members Panchayat have caused huge loss to the government grant and damage to the panchayat property -- Appellate authority accepted his appeal, without deciding the subject matter of the lis by passing a non-speaking and non-reasoned order -- Held, Appellate authority ought to have discussed the material on record and was legally required to record valid reasons for arriving at a right conclusion, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties in the right perspective Matter remitted back to Appellate authority. Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 188 (P&H).

Section 20 Removal of Panch Complainant Right of -- In pursuance of the complaint made by the complainant and on the basis of reports, the Director removed the Panch Appellate authority accepted the appeal without impleading the complainant as a party Held, since the complainant was the aggrieved party, so the appellate authority slipped into a legal error in accepting the appeal of private respondent, even without issuing notice to complainant, who was a necessary party -- Matter remitted back to Appellate authority. Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 188 (P&H). Section 216 Embezzlement of Gram Panchayat fund -- Recovery from ex-Sarpanch Opportunity of hearing -- By letter ex-Sarpanch was directed to pay an amount, which was kept excessive cash in hand, by him during the period from January 1993 to September, 2010 -- No material, muchless cogent, on record to suggest that any proper inquiry was conducted, after providing the opportunity, as contemplated u/s 216 of the Act -- Moreover, the impugned letter have been issued, without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to him, which renders it nullity -- Impugned letter cannot legally be sustained. Gurmail Chand (Ex-Sarpanch) v. The State of Punjab & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 166 (P&H).

Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953)

Section 17 Tenant Sale of land Right to Pre-empt -- Landlord is a small land owner, tenant had no right to pre-empt the sale of land Moreover the father of the plaintiffs was ordered to be evicted from the suit land -- Tenancy between the landlord and the father of the plaintiffs came to an end Suit was rightly dismissed. Ran Singh and others v. Vijay and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 176 (P&H).

Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994)

Section 66 -- Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, Rule 33(2)(2) Election of Panch -- Election result Jurisdiction of Returning Officer -- Returning Officer did not have the jurisdiction to direct the Presiding Officer to change the election result already duly announced by him by way of election result. Kulwant Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 179 (P&H). Section 66 -- Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, Rule 33(2)(2) Election result Jurisdiction of Presiding officer -- Presiding Officer did not have the jurisdiction/power to change the result, by means of election result at the direction of Returning Officer -- Same is not only illegal, but against the statutory provisions of law, as well and cannot legally be sustained. Kulwant Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 179 (P&H).

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961)

Section 10-A -- Lease Reduction of lease period Jurisdiction of Collector -- Collector came to a definite conclusion that the auction was conducted without any proper munadi -- At the time of auction, even BDPO was also not present, his signatures were obtained lateron -Collector decreased the period of lease from 8 years to 3 years and ordered that if the petitioner is ready to take the pond on Patta at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per year after 3 years then he should deposit its th in the Panchayat Department, after three years Held, period of lease has been reduced keeping in view the facts of the case and interest of the Gram Panchayat -- Under section 10-A of the Act, AC 1st Grade is empowered to cancel the lease or vary the terms thereof unconditionally or subject to such condition as he may think fit -- Therefore, it cannot be said that reduction of lease period is without jurisdiction. Jaibir v. District Collector, Bhiwani & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 169 (P&H DB).

Purchase of Specific Khasra

Mutation Partition of land -- Contention that specific khasra number has been transferred and the mutation should have been sanctioned by the revenue authorities with respect to that specific Khasra number only Held, contention is not sustainable -- Out of the joint khewat even sale of specific khasra number will be deemed to be sale of share which is always subject to partition. Daljit Singh and others v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 143 (P&H). Partition of land -- Joint land Land in question is a joint -- Even though the petitioner has purchased a specific khasra numbers from one of the co-sharers, the same will be deemed to have been purchased as share in the joint land in question that is why the partition proceedings are permitted under the provisions of the law -- Long standing possession over the property cannot be deemed to be possession for all times to come. Lichhmi v. State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 193 (P&H).

Qualification
Appointment of Lambardar Personal influence, character, services rendered to the State by himself or by the family, service rendered to the community and development programmes are relevant considerations for appointment of a Lambardar.Bhim Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 162 (P&H).

Question of law
Payment of rent -- Facts High Court did not interfere on the ground that no question of law was involved -- It failed to notice that the inferences and legal effect from proved facts is a question of law -- High Court order is unsustainable. Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Another v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 120 (SC).

Recommendation of Revenue Authorities

Appointment of Lambardar Remand by Commissioner Effect of -- Earlier recommendations made by the A.C. IInd Grade and Ist Grade are insignificant, since the Divisional Commissioner, had set aside the order of the Collector appointing petitioner as Lambardar -- Only the subsequent order after the remand is to be taken into consideration. Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 195 (P&H).

Recovery from ex-Sarpanch

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 Embezzlement of Gram Panchayat fund -Opportunity of hearing -- By letter ex-Sarpanch was directed to pay an amount, which was kept excessive cash in hand, by him during the period from January 1993 to September, 2010 -- No material, muchless cogent, on record to suggest that any proper inquiry was conducted, after providing the opportunity, as contemplated u/s 216 of the Act -- Moreover, the impugned letter have been issued, without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to him, which renders it nullity -- Impugned letter cannot legally be sustained. Gurmail Chand (Ex-Sarpanch) v. The State of Punjab & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 166 (P&H).

Recovery suit
Ejectment of tenant -- Leave to defend -- Ejectment order was passed on account of non-payment of rent Suit for recovery of arrears of rent -- A perusal of the application for leave to defend shows that neither the rate of interest nor the amount claimed by the plaintiff-

petitioner had been disputed except to allege that the rent note was forged Held, in the absence of any prima facie material to substantiate that the petitioner had made payment of the amount either by way of rent or mense profits for the period he had occupied the premises, leave to defend granted by the trial court was not justified -- Only plea regarding forged rent note could not be a substantial defence entitling the defendant to leave to defend. Dhrenderpal Gupta v. Mahipal, 2012(1) L.A.R. 171 (P&H).

Reduction of lease period

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Jurisdiction of Collector -Collector came to a definite conclusion that the auction was conducted without any proper munadi -- At the time of auction, even BDPO was also not present, his signatures were obtained lateron -- Collector decreased the period of lease from 8 years to 3 years and ordered that if the petitioner is ready to take the pond on Patta at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/per year after 3 years then he should deposit its th in the Panchayat Department, after three years Held, period of lease has been reduced keeping in view the facts of the case and interest of the Gram Panchayat -- Under section 10-A of the Act, AC 1st Grade is empowered to cancel the lease or vary the terms thereof unconditionally or subject to such condition as he may think fit -- Therefore, it cannot be said that reduction of lease period is without jurisdiction. Jaibir v. District Collector, Bhiwani & Ors., 2012(1) L.A.R. 169 (P&H DB).

Remand by Commissioner
Appointment of Lambardar Earlier recommendations made by the A.C. IInd Grade and Ist Grade are insignificant, since the Divisional Commissioner, had set aside the order of the Collector appointing petitioner as Lambardar -- Only the subsequent order after the remand is to be taken into consideration. Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 195 (P&H).

Removal of Panch
Complainant Right of -- In pursuance of the complaint made by the complainant and on the basis of reports, the Director removed the Panch Appellate authority accepted the appeal without impleading the complainant as a party Held, since the complainant was the aggrieved party, so the appellate authority slipped into a legal error in accepting the appeal of private respondent, even without issuing notice to complainant, who was a necessary party -- Matter remitted back to Appellate authority.Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 188 (P&H). Director removed Panch on two counts that he and other Members Panchayat have caused huge loss to the government grant and damage to the panchayat property -Appellate authority accepted his appeal, without deciding the subject matter of the lis by passing a non-speaking and non-reasoned order -- Held, Appellate authority ought to have discussed the material on record and was legally required to record valid reasons for arriving at a right conclusion, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties in the right perspective Matter remitted back to Appellate authority. Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 188 (P&H).

Reservation of Seats
Election of Panch Category/reservation of seats of Panches already notified before elections, cannot possibly be subsequently changed after the completion of election process

and declaration of the result. Kulwant Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 179 (P&H).

Res-judicata
Mutation proceedings Mutation does not confer any title -- Finding recorded during the mutation proceedings while sanctioning or rejecting the same in favour of either of the parties in a suit for declaration of title or possession on the basis of sale deed etc., does not operate as res judicata. Smt. Gurjeet Kaur and others v. Financial Commissioner and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 200 (P&H).

Right of Complainant
Removal of Panch In pursuance of the complaint made by the complainant and on the basis of reports, the Director removed the Panch Appellate authority accepted the appeal without impleading the complainant as a party Held, since the complainant was the aggrieved party, so the appellate authority slipped into a legal error in accepting the appeal of private respondent, even without issuing notice to complainant, who was a necessary party -- Matter remitted back to Appellate authority. Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 188 (P&H).

Right to Pre-empt
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 Tenant Sale of land Landlord is a small land owner, tenant had no right to pre-empt the sale of land Moreover the father of the plaintiffs was ordered to be evicted from the suit land -- Tenancy between the landlord and the father of the plaintiffs came to an end Suit was rightly dismissed. Ran Singh and others v. Vijay and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 176 (P&H).

Sale instance
Acquisition of land -- Market Value -- Law of deduction Not possible to state precisely the exact deduction which could be made Deduction is to be applied on account of carrying out development activities like providing roads or civic amenities such as electricity, water etc. when the land has been acquired for construction of residential, commercial or institutional projects -- It shall also be applied where the sale instances (exemplars) relate to smaller pieces of land and in comparison the acquisition relates to a large tract of land -Deduction can also be applied on account of wastage of land -- It is neither possible nor appropriate to stricto sensu define a class of cases where the Court would not apply any deduction -- The cases where the acquired land itself is fully developed and has all essential amenities, before acquisition, for the purpose for which it is acquired requiring no additional expenditure for its development, falls under the purview of cases of no deduction'. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Acquisition of land -- Market Value -- Sale deeds executed in favour of the family members or persons known to the claimants just about two months prior to the issuance of the notification u/s 4(1) are liable to be ignored. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC). Acquisition of land -- Market Value -- Vendor or vendee of sale deed had not been examined to prove them in Court -- Sale instances cannot be rejected on that ground.Cement Corporation of Indias case (2004)8 SCC 270 relied. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Sale instance of smaller size of land

Acquisition of land -- Market Value -- Sale instances even of smaller plots could be considered for determining the market value of a larger chunk of land with some deduction unless, there was comparability in potential, utilisation, amenities and infrastructure with hardly any distinction. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Sale of land
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 Tenant Right to Pre-empt -- Landlord is a small land owner, tenant had no right to pre-empt the sale of land Moreover the father of the plaintiffs was ordered to be evicted from the suit land -- Tenancy between the landlord and the father of the plaintiffs came to an end Suit was rightly dismissed. Ran Singh and others v. Vijay and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 176 (P&H).

Small sale instance

Acquisition of land -- Market Value Deduction from -- Land acquired had the potential of being developed for residential or institutional purposes, the same was acquired for construction of a Government Polytechnic Institute Sale instance is situated at a distance of 1-1/2 furlong from the acquired land cannot be said to be incomparable sale instance, i.e. it has to be taken as a comparable sale instance Value of sale of small pieces of land can be taken into consideration for determining even the value of a large tract of land 10% deduction is made from the estimated market value of acquired land. Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr.,2012(1) L.A.R. 212 (SC).

Statutory period for Award

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Acquisition of land Stay of proceedings If any action or proceeding required to be taken after the issue of declaration u/s 6 is stayed by a Court, the entire period of stay will get excluded in calculating the period of two years within which an award is required to be made by the Collector -- Once the stay order passed by a Court is vacated or ceases to operate, the clog put on the running of the period specified in the main section is removed. R. Indira Saratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 136 (SC). Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Acquisition of land Stay of proceedings Time taken in supply of copy of the judgment cannot extend the period of two years specified in Section 11A. R. Indira Saratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 136 (SC).

Stay of proceedings
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Acquisition of land Statutory period for Award -- If any action or proceeding required to be taken after the issue of declaration u/s 6 is stayed by a Court, the entire period of stay will get excluded in calculating the period of two years within which an award is required to be made by the Collector -- Once the stay order passed by a Court is vacated or ceases to operate, the clog put on the running of the period specified in the main section is removed. R. Indira Saratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 136 (SC). Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Acquisition of land Statutory period for Award -- Time taken in supply of copy of the judgment cannot extend the period of two years specified in

Section 11A. R. Indira Saratchandra v. State of Tamil Nadu & others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 136 (SC).

Tenancy
Lease Deposits made in Bank -- Occupants did not send any communication informing the owner about the deposits nor did the challans showed that the deposits were being made towards rent -- There were no rent receipts from the appellants -- Respondents did not choose to send the rents by postal money orders -- There is no explanation as to non-deposit of the alleged rents for the earlier period Held, deposits were not bonafide. Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Another v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 120 (SC). Lease Electoral Roll will not show whether a person is occupying a premises as a tenant or as a licencee -- It may at best show that the person was residing in the premises -Inference drawn by the court from the electoral roll, that respondent was not a mere licencee, is totally illogical and unsustainable. Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Another v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 120 (SC). Lease No lease deed or tenancy agreement to evidence the tenancy; nor were there any receipts for payment of any rent Owner had given evidence on oath that respondents were gratuitous licensees and they had never paid any rent or other charges and his evidence was corroborated by a neighbour Held, the burden was on the occupants to establish that they were tenants and not licensees. Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Another v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 120 (SC).

Tenant
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 Sale of land Right to Pre-empt -Landlord is a small land owner, tenant had no right to pre-empt the sale of land Moreover the father of the plaintiffs was ordered to be evicted from the suit land -- Tenancy between the landlord and the father of the plaintiffs came to an end Suit was rightly dismissed. Ran Singh and others v. Vijay and others, 2012(1) L.A.R. 176 (P&H).

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)

Section 107 Lease Tenancy -- No lease deed or tenancy agreement to evidence the tenancy; nor were there any receipts for payment of any rent Owner had given evidence on oath that respondents were gratuitous licensees and they had never paid any rent or other charges and his evidence was corroborated by a neighbour Held, the burden was on the occupants to establish that they were tenants and not licensees.Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Another v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 120 (SC). Section 107 Lease Tenancy Deposits made in Bank -- Occupants did not send any communication informing the owner about the deposits nor did the challans showed that the deposits were being made towards rent -- There were no rent receipts from the appellants -Respondents did not choose to send the rents by postal money orders -- There is no explanation as to non-deposit of the alleged rents for the earlier period Held, deposits were not bonafide. Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Another v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 120 (SC). Section 107 Lease Tenancy -- Electoral Roll will not show whether a person is occupying a premises as a tenant or as a licencee -- It may at best show that the person was

residing in the premises -- Inference drawn by the court from the electoral roll, that respondent was not a mere licencee, is totally illogical and unsustainable.Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Another v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Another, 2012(1) L.A.R. 120 (SC).
********