Total Pageviews

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Ramesh Chand v. Kishan Chand
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1415
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
R.S.A. No. 1628 of 2009 (O&M)
Ramesh Chand
v.
Kishan Chand
{Decided on 07/05/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate.
(A) Revenue Law--Consent Decree--Revenue Entries--Civil Court decree prevails over revenue entries--Property in dispute given to plaintiff/respondent and he was put in possession under civil Court decree--Revenue entries, in absence of proof of handing back of possession by plaintiff/respondent in favour of defendant/appellant could not be relied upon in preference to civil Court decree. (Para 10)
(B) Revenue Law--Consent decree--Revenue Entries--Limitation--Land in disputes though given to plaintiff/respondent in consent decree was entered in name of defendant/appellant--Suit for declaration that plaintiff/respondent was owner in possession of land in dispute filed within three years of knowledge--Not barred by limitation. (Para 8)
--------------------
Major Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Pb., Chd.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1417
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh
C.W.P. No.18770 of 2008
Major Singh
v.
Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Pb., Chandigarh & Ors.
{Decided on 05/05/2009}
For the Petitioner (In C.W.P. No.18770 of 2008): Mr. G. S. Nagra, Advocate.
For the Petitioner (In C.W.P. No.20225 of 2008): Mr. B. S. Bali, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
For the Respondent No.4: Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Lambardar--Appointment of--Matric is not better qualification than 10+2 when merits are considered--Fact that petitioner was Sarbrah lambardar could not be ignored being very relevant factor to be considered
Revenue Law--Lambardar-- Appointment of--Comparative merit--Petitioner, 47 years old having educational qualification as 10+2--He owned 12 kanals of land--He remained sarbrah Lambardar for 10 years--Respondent no.4 is 60 years old and is matriculate--He retired as senior Assistant from Roadways and has built house in one kanal area--His father owned 5 acres of land--A younger person can perform his duties better compared to person of advanced age--Matric is not better qualification than 10+2 when merits are considered--Fact that petitioner was Sarbrah lambardar could not be ignored being very relevant factor to be considered--Involvement of respondent no.4 in FIR in which he was subsequently acquitted may not be disqualification but is a factor which was to be taken in consideration while considering relative merits of candidates--Appointment of petitioner as lambardar done by collector upheld--Order of Commissioner and Financial Commissioner set aside. (Paras 7 & 9)
----------------------
Daljit Singh v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1419
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Misc. No. 11613-M of 2009
Daljit Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 08/05/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Bhatheja, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Criminal Law--Anticipatory Bail--Recovery of 7 kg. of poppy husk from pillion rider--Petition was driving the scooter could not be arrested as he allegedly filed away from spot--Petitioner has joined investigation--His custodial interrogation is not required--No other case pending against him--Interim pre-arrest bail granted to petitioner affirmed till filling of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.--Petitioner shall furnish regular bail-bonds to satisfaction of Court on submission of report--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438--Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 15. (Paras 3 & 4)
--------------------