Review Petition - Public Purpose - Land Acquisition - New Evidence - Unauthorized Representation-Review Petition - Grounds for Review – Review petition under Article 227 challenging the judgment dismissing the challenge to land acquisition proceedings – Held: Review can be sought only if there is a manifest error or mistake in the judgment. The grounds for review must include new evidence that is relevant and has the potential to change the outcome of the case. Rehearing under the guise of review without new substantial evidence is improper. [Paras 1, 19-20]

Public Purpose - Change in Use – Analysis – Held: The argument that the purpose for which the land was acquired has been served and the land is no longer required does not hold. Public purpose definitions are dynamic, and changes in planning or utilization of land by the state do not invalidate the original acquisition. [Paras 12-13]

Unauthorized Representation – Consideration – Held: The plea that the counsel who argued the original case was unauthorized is not valid. The consistent appearance of the counsel in previous hearings undermines the claim of unauthorized representation. [Para 18]

New Evidence - Relevance and Impact – Analysis – Held: The new documents presented were either previously considered or irrelevant to the core issue of public purpose in land acquisition. They do not meet the threshold of changing the original decision. [Paras 17-18]

Decision: The review application is dismissed as devoid of merit. The original judgment is upheld, affirming the legality of the acquisition and rejecting the grounds for review. [Para 20]

Service Law - Reservation Claim Proof - Appeal - Appeal against order granting appointment under EBPGC category despite late submission of certificate - Held, Eligibility qualifications must be possessed by the cutoff date, but proof of eligibility for reservation can be submitted later - Appeal Dismissed, respondent entitled to appointment [Paras 27-29].

Eligibility vs. Proof of Eligibility - Analysis - Held, Eligibility must be met by the cutoff date, but proof of reservation eligibility need not be submitted by the same date - Late submission of the EBPGC certificate does not invalidate the claim for reservation [Para 29].

Decision - Upholding Single Judge’s Order - Court affirms the Single Judge's decision, allowing the respondent’s appointment under the EBPGC category, dismissing the appeal [Para 45].

Land Revenue – Partition Proceedings – Subsequent Purchasers – Locus Standi – Writ petition challenging partition proceedings after seven years from issuance of sanadtakseem – Held, subsequent purchasers (petitioners) have no locus standi to challenge partition proceedings when predecessor-in-interest had already challenged and failed – Application under Section 122 to be filed within three years from date of instrument of partition – No law cited allowing challenge by subsequent purchasers – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-9]

Limitation for Possession – Instrument of Partition – Held – Application for possession under Section 122 must be filed within three years from date recorded in instrument of partition – Document indicating possession taken after three years but application for possession filed earlier – Delay argument rejected – Entire proceedings not to be set aside based on delay by subsequent purchasers. [Para 8]

Legal Principle – Sale of Specific Khasra Numbers – Held – Sale deed mentioning specific khasra numbers in joint khewat deemed sale of share from joint khewat – Recitals in sale deed do not bind other co-sharers – Grievance regarding purchase of specific khasra numbers prima facie misconceived. [Para 8(v)]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – No merit in petition by subsequent purchasers – Petitioners directed to seek remedy against predecessor-in-interest for alleged suppression of facts. [Para 9]

Arbitration Law – Objections under Section 34 – Limitation – Appeal against the dismissal of objections to an arbitral award. Held: The dismissal of objections on the ground of limitation was improper as there was no evidence that the signed copy of the arbitral award was served upon the appellants. The Additional District Judge erred in commenting on the merits after concluding that the objections were time-barred. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision. [Paras 1-11]

Compliance with Section 31(5) of the Act – The appellants contended that they did not receive a signed copy of the arbitral award, thus their objections were within the limitation period. There was no evidence on record, apart from a covering letter, to prove that the copy of the award was sent to the appellants. [Para 3]

Comments on Merits – Procedural Error – The Additional District Judge made comments on the merits of the case after concluding that the objections were time-barred. This was procedurally incorrect. Once an application under Section 34 of the Act is dismissed on the ground of limitation, the court should not address the merits. [Paras 6-9]

Decision – Remand for Fresh Decision – The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the concerned court to decide the objection application under Section 34 of the Act afresh, in accordance with the law. [Para 10]

Eviction for Impairment of Premises – Proof Required – Reversal of eviction order on the ground that landlord failed to prove material impairment in value or utility of the demised premises – The Court held that without evidence of actual impairment in value or utility, no decree for eviction can be passed – Landlord's mere assertion without substantive proof does not meet the legal threshold for eviction. [Paras 1-11]

Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court – Limited Scope – The High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Rent Acts is confined to verifying that the finding of fact recorded by lower courts was according to law and free from legal error – Findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse or unsupported by evidence. [Paras 12-13]

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – The Court upheld the Appellate Authority's decision, finding no procedural irregularity or legal infirmity – The revision petition was dismissed, reinforcing the need for substantive evidence to prove material impairment in value or utility of the premises for eviction. [Para 13]

Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 56(2) – Limitation period for recovery of electricity dues – Applicability – Demand for payment beyond the limitation period – Held, the limitation period of two years under Section 56(2) restricts the right of the licensee company to disconnect electricity supply due to non-payment of dues after the period of limitation has expired – The licensee company can raise a supplementary demand after the expiry of the limitation period, but cannot take coercive measures such as disconnection of electricity supply – Recovery of additional amount can be pursued through legal remedies. (Para 10 and 13) 

Liability for electricity dues – Effect of new Act – Discovery of mistake or fault after the new Act comes into force – Held, the liability accrued under the old Act continues to be in force, but cannot be enforced beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the new Act – The new Act does not have retrospective effect – The licensee company cannot enforce the liability after the expiry of the limitation period as prescribed by the new Act – The provisions of the new Act have overriding effect, and inconsistency between the old Act and the new Act in regard to enforcement of liability arises – The liability can only be enforced within the limitation period prescribed under the new Act. (Para 11 and 14)

Sparking and faulty voltage causing damage and disruption in power supply – Impact on electricity consumption and billing – Held, the Corporation is stopped from taking coercive measures for recovery of dues beyond the limitation period – Disconnection of electricity supply is not permissible for outstanding arrears – The Corporation can pursue legal remedies for recovery of the additional amount, if permissible under the law. (Para 12 and 15)

Electricity Law - Recovery of Arrears - Limitation – Disconnection-Limitation on Recovery of Arrears - Electricity Supply – Letters Patent Appeal challenging disconnection of electricity due to arrears under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 – Held: PSPCL cannot disconnect electricity supply for arrears beyond two years from the date of first demand. Arrears prior to 07.11.2003 cannot be recovered through disconnection. The corporation can pursue other legal remedies for recovery. [Paras 8-15]

Plea of Limitation - Permissibility in Writ Proceedings – Analysis – Held: The plea of limitation, being purely legal, can be raised for the first time in writ proceedings, even if not raised in earlier civil suits or appeals. The limitation period under Section 56(2) began from the date of demand, i.e., 07.11.2005, limiting recovery to amounts due after 07.11.2003. [Para 8]

Alternative Remedy - Civil Suit Barred – Consideration – Held: The appellant initially filed a civil suit seeking to prevent disconnection and declare the supplementary demand illegal. The suit was barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as an alternative remedy was available before the Disputes Settlement Committee. [Para 4]

Decision: The appeal is allowed. PSPCL cannot recover arrears beyond 07.11.2003 through disconnection. The corporation can pursue other legal remedies for such recovery. PSPCL is directed to raise a supplementary demand from 07.11.2003 onwards. Any amount already paid by the appellant shall be adjusted against the balance amount due. [Paras 15-16]

Stamp Duty - Demand for Difference - Letters Patent Appeal under Section 47A - The appellant challenged the demand for the difference in stamp duty raised by the Collector without issuing a show-cause notice. The property was purchased as residential, but a complaint after five years claimed it was commercial, leading to a revised stamp duty demand. The Court held that the prescribed procedure under Section 47A and the relevant rules, which includes issuing a show-cause notice and conducting an inquiry with reasonable opportunity for the appellant to be heard, was not followed. The impugned orders were quashed, and liberty was given to the State to reissue notice following the proper procedure. [Paras 1-18]

Procedure for Assessment - Analysis - The Court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedure for assessing stamp duty, including the issuance of a show-cause notice and allowing the appellant to present evidence and contest the assessment. The lack of adherence to this procedure rendered the Collector's demand unsustainable. [Paras 10-13]

Decision - Quashing of Demand Notice - The Court quashed the orders passed by the authorities, including the Commissioner and the learned Single Judge, due to non-compliance with Section 47A and the relevant rules. The appeal was allowed, with directions for the State to follow the proper procedure if they wished to reassess the stamp duty. [Paras 17-18]

Reservation for Scheduled Castes - Public Employment - Scheduled Caste Certificate – Migration- Scheduled Caste Certificate - Validity Across States – Letters patent appeal challenging the denial of reservation benefits due to a Scheduled Caste certificate issued by the State of Haryana – Held: A resident of a particular state generally cannot claim reservation benefits in another state. However, given the historical context of Punjab and Haryana's partition, if a person belongs to a caste recognized as Scheduled Caste in both states, the authorities cannot insist on obtaining a certificate from Punjab alone. The concept of migration does not apply in this context. [Paras 1, 72]

Denial of Reservation Benefits - Constitutional Mandate – Analysis – Held: Denying the appellant the benefit of reservation on the grounds of the certificate being issued by Haryana defeats the constitutional provisions of Articles 16, 19, 340, and 341. The Balmiki caste is recognized as Scheduled Caste in both Punjab and Haryana, and the historical partition of Punjab supports the validity of Haryana-issued certificates for such purposes. [Paras 69-70, 72]

Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order dated 20.02.2018 by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.3761 of 2014 is set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the appellant to join pursuant to the appointment order dated 16.03.2012 within six weeks and grant notional seniority and consequential benefits without monetary benefits from 16.03.2012. [Paras 73-74]