Total Pageviews

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Jagdish Singh v. Jagir Singh
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 818 (FC)
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB
Before
Jagpal Singh Sandhu, I.A.S.
R.O.R No. 592 of 2007
Jagdish Singh
v.
Jagir Singh
{Decided on 01/10/2008}
For the Respondent: Mr. D.P.S. Kahlon, Advocate.
Revenue Law--Lambardar--Appointment of--Age factor--Ancestral claim--Merits of both the candidates are almost equal--Respondent is an old men of 67 years by ex-servicemen--Petitioner is 47 years of age and son of deceased lambardar--The age factor and ancestral claim of petitioner has the upper edge than the respondent--Petition accepted--Petitioner is appointed as Lambardar--|Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 14 & 15. (Para 5)
————————
Sher Singh v. Gian Chand
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 820 (FC)
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB
Before
P. Ram, I.A.S.
R.O.R. No. 740 of 2008
Sher Singh
v.
Gian Chand
{Decided on 27/11/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. N.K. Manchanda, Advocate.
Revenue Law--Lambardar--Appointment of--Registration of Criminal case registered against petitioner--His candidature for appointment of Lambardar rightly ignored-- |Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Act, 1887, Section 16-- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 14 & 15. (Para 3)
—————————
Gurdeep Singh v. Baldev Singh
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 821(FC)
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB
Before
P. Ram, I.A.S.
R.O.R. No. 366 of 2005
Gurdeep Singh
v.
Baldev Singh
{Decided on 27/11/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. G.L. Bajaj, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. P.C. Rakhra, Advocate.
Revenue Law--Khasra Girdawari--Correction of--Central Govt. land controlled by the Railways--Petitioner unable to indicate as to under what circumstances and under what terms and conditions he came to occupy the land--Civil litigation decided against the petitioner--Plea that khasra girdawari enteries in his favour found mention in the latest jamabandi cannot be accepted--Petitioner had not locus standi to occupy the central Govt.--|Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, Section 34 (Para 3)
———————
Manjit Kaur v. State of Punjab
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 822
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajai Lamba
Civil Writ Petition No.3391 of 2009
Manjit Kaur
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 06/03/2009}
Present: Mr. Anureet S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Kamaldeep Singh Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Suspension of Panch--Criminal Offence—Reasoned ordered required to be passed by Director to see whether offending act as reflected in FIR is likely to cause embarrassment in discharge of duties or involves moral turpitude or defect of character
Panchayati Raj Law--Suspension of Panch--Cheating--Allegations in FIR that petitioner indulged in cheating Government of amount of widow pension from date when she got remarried--Contention of petitioner that she stopped accepting pension even before election and amount taken on account of wrong withdrawal is refunded back--Reasoned ordered required to be passed by Director to see whether offending act of petitioner as reflected in FIR is likely to embarrass her in discharge of her duties or involves moral turpitude or defect of character--Parties to appear before Director-- |Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Section 20(3)--Penal Code, 1860, Section 420
--------------------