Total Pageviews

Saturday, March 20, 2010

a Drugs Ltd. v. Ram Singh
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 742
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
RFA No. 1204 of 1995
M/s Alpha Drugs Ltd.
v.
Ram Singh
{Decided on 05/12/2008}
For the Appellants: Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. Reeta Kohli, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
IMPORTANT POINT
Market Value--Principle of averaging of sale deed--Entire land under acquisition is agricultural having no special feature--No error in adopting principle of averaging of two sale deeds.
(A) Land and Property Law--Acquisition of Land--Compensation--Determination of--Market value--Principle of averaging of sale deed--Entire land under acquisition is agricultural having no special feature--Both sale deeds relied pertaining to same village and having sold by same person--No error in adopting principle of averaging of two sale deeds--|Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4, 6 and 18. (Para 18 & 19)
(B) Land and Property Law--Acquisition of Land--Compensation--Determination of--Principle of averaging of sale deed--When there are several comparable sales or awards pertaining to different land--In view of decision of Supreme Court in M/s Printers House Pvt. Ltd. method of averaging of lands having different feature is not correct--|Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4, 6 and 18. (Paras 18 & 19)
------------------
Monica Mittal v. Narinder Singh
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 746
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
Civil Revision No. 6460 of 2006 (O&M)
Monica Mittal
v.
Narinder Singh
{Decided on 18/12/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Sood, Advocate.
Rent Law--Eviction--Provisional Rent--Assessment of--Shop located in Chaura Bazar Ludhiana, main commercial centre--Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent @ Rs.20000/- p.m. keeping in view the location of shop--He did not accept the version of either party--Rent Controller ordered that the rent be paid w.e.f. 1.2.1997 @ Rs.20000/- per month--Petition was filed on 1.2.2002--Impugned order modified--Rent is directed to be paid w.e.f. 1.2.2002 i.e. the date when the petition was filed--Held; It cannot be believed that any rent would have been paid without receipt after the filing of rent petition--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13.(Para 15)
------------------
Jasbir Singh v. Jalandhar Ex-Servicemen ……
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 748
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
CR No.4058 of 2007 and CR No.6285 of 2008
Jasbir Singh
v.
Jalandhar Ex-Servicemen M/T Cooperative Ltd.
{Decided on 16/01/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. M. L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Himani Sarin, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate.
Rent Law--Eviction--Personal necessity--Property situated in a zone marked for transport business--Land lord required the property for starting transport business--Ld. Rent Controller accepted the claim of landlord--The Ld. Appellate Authority upset the finding of Rent Controller’s on the ground that land lord had been earning more than 2 lacs per month and there was no necessity for her to obtain the property--The approach of Appellate Authority betrays a complete want of reasonable approach--Decision of Appellate Authority set aside--Held; Interalia-
(i) It is not for a Court to set that what was the adequate income for a person in order that a person should venture into entrepreneurship.
(ii) All that was necessary to make an assessment of the available evidence ought to be seen whether there was a bona fide need for the landlord to require the premises that could be supported through oral and documentary evidence.
(iii) So long as it is brought out that the statutory requirements namely of non-availability of any other portion of property in the same area that is suitable for the landlord’s need, the Appellate Authority was clearly in error in reversing the decision of the Rent Controller--Two months time given to the tenant to vacate the premises--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13. (Para 5)
------------------
Col. (Retd.) Daljit Singh v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 751
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann
C.W.P. No. 11956 of 1999
Col. (Retd.) Daljit Singh
v.
Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh
{Decided on 22/12/2008}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. G.S. Dhillon, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Resumption of site--Only President of Notified Area Committee (NAC) was competent under clause 10 of allotment letter to pass order of resumption--Impugned order passed by Executive Officer resuming site in question set aside.
Land and Property Law--Resumption of site--Default in payment of installments--Power of Executive Officer--Only president of Notified Area Committee (NAC) was competent under clause 10 of allotment letter to pass order of resumption--Nothing to show that power of resumption of site vested with committee--In such a situation any delegation by committee of its powers in favour of an Executive Officer did not entitle such executive officer to proceed and pass an order of resumption--Impugned order passed by Executive Officer resuming site in question set aside--As petitioners have already paid entire outstanding amount along with interest as admitted by respondent the site in question stand restored in favour of petitioner--|Punjab Municipal Act, 1911--Punjab Municipal (Executive Officer) Act, 1931, Section 4. (Paras 9 and 11)
--------------