Total Pageviews

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Satveer Singh v. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 903
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
CR No.5345 of 2008 (O&M)
Satveer Singh
v.
Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana
{Decided on 31/01/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mr. J.R. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kashmira Singh, Advocate.
(A) Land and Property Law--Acquisition of land--Apportionment of enhanced compensation--Application under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act not maintainable during pendency of application under Section 18 of L.A. Act--Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 30. (Para 1 & 6)
(B) Land and Property Law--Acquisition of land--Apportionment of compensation--Question of--Entitlement of petitioner being coparceners along with their father not maintainable under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act--Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 30. (Para 6)
------------
Harbans Lal v. Smt. Sushma Kapil alias Nikky Kapil
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 905
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
C.R. No.6667 of 2001 and C.R. No.6608 of 2001
Harbans Lal
v.
Smt. Sushma Kapil alias Nikky Kapil
{Decided on 12/02/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chetan Slathia, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Kulbushan Sharma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Sub-Tenancy--If Sub tenant was entitled to be protected in his possession as a sub-tenant who had come by possession prior to the Rent Control Act, a fortiorari his son who is the third respondent is also entitled to the same benefit
(A) Rent Law--Sub-Tenancy--Sub tenant is in the eyes of law a tenant vis-a-vis his own landlord who is the first tenant. It is no different from the status of a tenant from the original landlord, though there may exist no privity of contract between the original landlord and the sub-tenant but the legal incidence of heritability itself is not any different--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(2) (ii) (a). (Para 10)
(B) Rent Law--Sub-Tenancy--If Sub tenant was entitled to be protected in his possession as a sub-tenant who had come by possession prior to the Rent Control Act, a fortiorari his son who is the third respondent is also entitled to the same benefit--||East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(2) (ii) (a). (Para 10)
(C) Rent Law--Sub-Tenancy--If a sub-tenant in respect of one portion of the property cannot be ejected and ejectment is inoperative by virtue of the non-applicability of the Rent Control Act to that extent, the separation of that tenancy should be taken as legally recognized. If another portion of the building held by the tenant had been sublet after the Rent Restriction Act, such a sub-tenancy could be liable for eviction without in any way affecting the rights of yet another sub-tenant whose possession is protected in the manner referred to above--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(2) (ii) (a). (Para 10)
----------------
Ved Parkash v. Surender Singh
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 909
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
RSA No.3382 of 2005(O&M)
Ved Parkash
v.
Surender Singh
{Decided on 12/02/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Ramesh Sandhir, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate.
Revenue Law--Pre emption--Disputed land described on Gair Mumkin Bara in revenue records--Contention that land is neither agricultural land nor village immovable property therefore Preemption Act not applicable--Contention rejected--Held; Even though the land is not agricultural land, it shall remain village immovable property if the land is situated in village and the provisions of Section 15 shall be applicable to such land--|Punjab Preemption Act, 1913, Section 3(ii). (Para 12 & 18)
CASES CITED:
1. Asa Nand and another V. Swatantarpaul Singh and others 1970 PLJ 579 (Para 8)
2. Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, 2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 652 (Para 19)
--------------
Ram Murti v. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 912
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla
Regular Second Appeal No.2775 of 1983
Ram Murti
v.
The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana
{Decided on 24/10/2008}
For the Appellants: Mr. R.S.Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate.
For the Respondents No.5 to 7, 8, 10 to 20: Mr. L.N.Verma, Advocate.
Cooperative Law--Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court--Where the infractions are mere errors committed in the exercise of jurisdiction, as opposed to an inherent lack thereof or an illegal assumption thereof, civil Courts would be entitled to entertain challenge to such an order--An officer conferred that jurisdiction, may in the exercise of his powers pass an erroneous or an incorrect order--But this erroneous or incorrect exercise of jurisdiction would not confer power upon a civil Court to entertain a suit challenging such an order where its jurisdiction is specifically barred--|Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, Section 82(3)--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 9.
--------------------