Total Pageviews

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

S.S. Harbhagwan High School…v. Financial Commissioner…
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2452
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No.11823 of 2006 (O&M)
S.S. Harbhagwan High School, Samana, District Patiala
v.
Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab & Ors.
{Decided on 31/03/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Harminder Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G. Punjab.
For the respondent No.4 in person Comrade: Mr. Sham Lal,.
IMPORTANT POINT
Bona fide purchaser--Even a bona fide purchaser would not be protected U/s 41 of T.P. Act if the sale in his favour is in violation of the statutory provisions regulating the property.
(A) Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, S. 10 (2) & (3)--Cancellation of allotment--Ground that allotment is obtained by misrepresentation or fraud--Challenge by way of writ petition--Plea of no Notice--Petitioner did not take the plea before the authorities of not being served with a show cause notice before cancellation, though factually found to be served--Cannot be allowed to take such a factual plea first time in writ petition.
(B) Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, S.10 (2) & (3)--Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976, R.6 and 8-- Cancellation of allotment --Suo moto action-- Ground that allotment was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud--Tehsildar or Naib Tehsildar is competent to cancel the sale, forfeit the amount already paid and resume the land U/s 10 (2)--Purpose of allotment found to be misrepresented--Property used for personal gains--Completely different from one demonstrated in allotment application--Would be a clear cut case of misrepresented and fraud--Cancellation held justified.
(C) Transfer of property Act,1882, S.41--Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, S.10 (2) & (3)--Bona fide purchaser--Property allotted under package deal act--Found to have been obtained by fraud--Suo moto cancellation ordered--Mean while sold--Even a bona fide purchaser would not be protected U/s 41 of T.P. Act if the sale in his favour is in violation of the statutory provisions regulating the property.
------------
State of Punjab & Anr. v. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti
2009(3) LAW HERALD(P&H) (SC) 2459
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma
Civil Appeal No. 4969 of 2009 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.14030 of 2006]
State of Punjab & Anr.
v.
Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti
{Decided on 31/07/2009}
IMPORTANT POINT
Sanction for prosecution--State has power of review in the matter of grant of sanction in terms of Section 197 of the Code of Cr.P.C.
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.197--Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.7 and 13(2)--Corruption case--Sanction for prosecution--Whether the State has any power of review in the matter of grant of sanction in terms of Section 197 of the Code of Cr.P.C.--Although the State in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory jurisdiction, the same, however, would not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised once again. For exercising its jurisdiction at a subsequent stage, express power of review in the State may not be necessary as even such a power is administrative in character. (P.7)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.197--Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.7 and 13(2)--Corruption case--Sanction for prosecution--Review of Order--Respondent was working as Block Development and Panchayat Officer. A First Information Report was lodged against him--Grant of sanction was refused. The matter, however, was placed before the competent authority once again and on or about 14.9.2004 sanction to prosecute the respondent was granted--By reason of the impugned judgment, the said writ petition was allowed opining that the State has no power of review and in any event, the impugned order could not have been passed as the State while passing its earlier order exhausted its jurisdiction-- Minister of Rural Development and Panchayats is the competent authority to grant or refuse to grant sanction, so far as the respondent is concerned--Fresh materials were placed before the sanctioning authority. No case, was made out that the sanctioning authority had failed to take into consideration a relevant fact or took into consideration an irrelevant fact. If the clarification sought for by the Hon'ble Minister had been supplied, the same should have formed a ground for reconsideration of the order--Government sent nine letters for obtaining the clarifications which were not replied to--There is also nothing to show as to why reconsideration became necessary. On what premise such a procedure was adopted is not known. Application of mind is also absent to show the necessity for reconsideration or review of the earlier order on the basis of the materials placed before the sanctioning authority or otherwise--Appeal dismissed. (P.3,4,12, 22 & 23)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.197 & 39--Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.7 and 13(2)--Corruption case--Sanction for prosecution--Judicial Review--An order refusing to grant sanction may attract judicial review by the Superior Courts. Validity of an order of sanction would depend upon application of mind on the part of the authority concerned and the material placed before it. All such material facts and material evidences must be considered by it. The sanctioning authority must apply its mind on such material facts and evidences collected during the investigation. (P.7)
______________