Total Pageviews

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Jarnail Singh v. Gram Panchayat, Mahan Singh Wala
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice J.S.Khehar
The Hon’ble Ms.Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
CWP No. 4619 of 2005
Jarnail Singh
v.
Gram Panchayat, Mahan Singh Wala
{Decided on 11/12/2008}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr.Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5: Mr.P.C.Goel, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
IMPORTANT POINT
Common Land--Procedings under Section 7 would remain in abeyance if question of title is raised during pendency of procedings.
(A) Revenue Law--Ejectment--Question of title--If a question relating to the issue of title is raised during the pendency of the proceedings under section 7 of the Village Common Lands Act, then proceedings under section 7, shall remain in abeyance to await the finalisation of the proceedings under section 11 of the Village Common Lands Act, and would reinitiate/ re-commence after the decision is rendered under section 11--|Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Sections 7 & 11. (Para 3)
(B) Revenue Law--Ejectment--Petition filed by Gram Panchayat seeking ejectment of petitioner from land owner by Gram Panchayat--During pendency of proceeding application under Section 11 filed--By impugned order collector adjudicated on claim of rival parties under Section 11 and without affording any opportunity to petitioners to raise any defence suo moto disposed of application under Section 7--Impugned order set-aside--|Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Sections 7 & 11. (Para 9)
----------------------
Jagdish Chander v. State of Haryana
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 126
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. D. Anand
Criminal Misc. No.M-33245 of 2008
Jagdish Chander
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 17/12/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate.
(A) Criminal Law--Premature release--Haryana Government policy dated 12.4.2002--Petitioner had undergone actual period of 14 years 8 months and 11 days and total sentence of 17 years 8 months and 14 days on 13.6.2008--Admittedly, petitioner is eligible for consideration in terms of policy prevalent on the date of conviction--Release of petitioner delayed on account of dereliction on the part of the competent authority--Petitioner ordered to be released forthwith, as an interim measure on furnishing of adequate surety, subject to ultimate decision in the matter. 2007(5) LAW HERALD (SC) 3393 relied--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 433-A.
(B) Constitutional Law--Precedent--Review petition pending before the Apex Court against judgment--The competent authority cannot, in the absence of a stay order, withhold the implementation of the Apex Court verdict--|Constitution of India, 1950, Article 141.
--------------------
Bhupinder Nath v. Satish Chand
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
R.S.A No. 1237 of 1986
Bhupinder Nath
v.
Satish Chand
{Decided on 12/12/2008}
For the Appellant: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.S.Kohli, Advocate and Ms. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Agreement to sell--Limitation--Suit for specific performance for agreement to sell property--Mere plea that it was filed on last day does not defeat right of respondent to seek specific performance.
(A) Specific Performance--Agreement to sell--Limitation--Suit for specific performance for agreement to sell property--Mere plea that it was filed on last day does not defeat right of respondent to seek specific performance. (Para 8)
(B) Specific performance--Agreement to sell--Khasra number of property changed as consequence of some acquisition--Identity of property not in dispute--Contention of respondent that specific performance of specific khasra No. in agreement could only be sought--Not tenable. (Para 3 & 4)
(C) Specific Performance--Agreement to sell--Plea of hardship not taken in written statement--When plea of hardship had not been raised by party concerned, examination of provisions of Section 20(2) (b) of Specific Relief Act would not arise at all--|Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 20(2) (b). (Para 7)

-------------------