State of Punjab v. Madan Lal
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 785 (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam
Criminal Appeal No. 529 of 2004
State of Punjab
v.
Madan Lal
{Decided on 05/03/2009}
Criminal Law--Quantum of punishment--Dishonour of Cheque--Convictions were in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act--High Court accordingly directed that the sentences imposed were to run concurrently--Appeal dismissed--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 427 and 482--Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138. (Para 2 and 7)
--------------
Amritpreet Singh v. Harpreet Singh
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 787 (FC)
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB
Before
P. Ram, I.A.S.
R.O.R. No. 349 of 2006
Amritpreet Singh
v.
Harpreet Singh
{Decided on 27/11/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate and Sh. Anupam Singla, Advocate.
Revenue Law-- Khasra Girdawari--Correction in--Khasra Girdawari entries already reflected in the latest jamabandi--Civil Court confirmed the petitioner of possession--After spot inspection, the Assistant Collector IInd Grade allowed the application for correction of Khasra Girdawari--Order maintained-- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, Section 34 (Para 32)
————————
Prit Pal Singh v. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 788 (DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh
C.W.P. No. 16854 of 2008
Prit Pal Singh
v.
Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh
{Decided on 17/10/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Preet Kawal Singh Gill, Advocate.
(A) Rent Law--Eviction--Personal Necessity--Middle portion of house is in occupation of present tenants--Landlord got vacated other two portions from other tenants--Landlord entitled to have complete enjoyment of his property, for that eviction from middle portion is necessary in present case--Eviction ordered--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(3) (1) (i) (a) (Para 6)
(B) Rent Law--Eviction--Personal Necessity--Subsequent events--Personal necessity is to be seen from the date when eviction petition was instituted--Subsequent events may be relevant but cannot be made sole basis for determining the right of the land lord for getting the premises vacated--|East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(3) (1) (i) (a) (Para 7)
(C) Rent Law--Eviction--Personal necessity--Need of family of landlord cannot be determined by the tenant--It cannot be viewed from the perception of tenant--Landlord can get the entire property or parts of the property vacated from the tenant.--East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13 (Para 7)
—————————
Harish Chander v. Jagtar Ram
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 790 (FC)
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER), PUNJAB
Before
P. Ram, I.A.S
R.O.R. No. 888 of 2007
Harish Chander
v.
Jagtar Ram
{Decided on 20/11/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.P.S. Tina, Advocate Proxy for Mr. CM Munjal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Karamvir Singh, Advocate Proxy for Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate.
Revenue Law--Lambardar-- Appointment of--Eligibility--Minor candidate--Petitioner was minor at the time of submitting of his application--He was not eligible for appointment as Lambardar--His candidature was rightly ignored--|Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 14 & 15. (Para 3)
ORDER
P. Ram, F.C. - This is a revision petition under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 14-6-07 of Divisional Commissioner, Ferozepur passed in the matter of appointment of lambardar of village Hazi Beth, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Ferozepur.
2. Brief facts of the case are given in detail in the order of District Collector, Ferozepur, which need not be repeated and may be read as part of this order.
3. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties. The only ground on which the Collector had ignored the candidature of the petitioner is that he was a minor at the time of submitting his application, which is correct being a technical ground. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to controvert the contention of the Collector. It is, thus, clear that, clear that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as lambardar on the appointed date. Accordingly, I see no justification for interfering with the orders of Commissioner and Collector. The revision petition is, thus, dismissed.
Announced.
—————————
Dev Samaj Society v. Bimla Rani
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 791
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Civil Revision No.6502 of 2007
Dev Samaj Society
v.
Bimla Rani
{Decided on 16/10/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate.
Rent Law--Eviction--Structural Changes--Shop--Land-lord failed to prove the alleged structural changes in question was done by the tenants--Concurrent findings of two Courts below based upon documentary and oral evidence--Findings cannot be said to be perverse--Petition dismissed--|Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 13(2) (iii), 15 (6) (Para 12)
——————
Randhir Singh v. State of Haryana
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 793 (DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jora Singh
C.W.P. No. 7632 of 2007
Randhir Singh
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 18/11/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Surender Dhull, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3: Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 4: Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate.
(A) Land and Property Law--Resumption of plot--Non payment of charges/extension fee on account of non construction--Basic amenities--Site was allotted to the petitioner on 5.1.2001--Zoning plan supplied to him on 4.5.2004--Adequate facilities which include roads, water, sewerage electricity etc available to the petitioner since 1994-95--No case is made out for coming to the conclusion that the basic amenities have not been provided so as to give birth to a lawful excuse of non-payment of charges/extension fee on account of non construction--Writ dismissed--|Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977
(B) Land and Property Law--Resumption of plot--Basic Amenities--As long as basic amenities like kutcha road, drainage, drinking water, sewerage, street lighting have been made available then the allottee cannot make a complaint of lack of amenities and such a complaint would not constitute a valid excuse either to defer payment or to non-levy of charges like extension fee. (Para 5)
———————
