Land Law – Revenue Rastas – Easementary Rights – Writ petitions challenging the grant of CLUs to developers – Dispute over petitioners' locus standi and rights to revenue rastas – Held that such disputes require evidence and cannot be settled in writ proceedings – Appropriate remedy is under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings Act – Competent Statutory Authority to determine whether revenue rastas are abandoned and if petitioners are entitled to compensation. [Paras 1-42]

Writ Proceedings – Locus Standi – Heavy disputes over the locus standi of petitioners to maintain writ petitions – Disputes cannot be settled summarily in writ proceedings – Required to be determined through contested pleadings and evidence before Competent Statutory Authority. [Para 41]

Revenue Rastas – Obstruction – Dispute over whether revenue rastas are unlawfully obstructed – Requires evidence not receivable in writ proceedings – To be determined by Competent Statutory Authority. [Para 41]

Compensation for Revenue Rastas – Entitlement – Dispute over petitioners' entitlement to compensation for revenue rastas – Requires proof of lawful interest and easementary rights – To be established before Competent Statutory Authority. [Para 41]

Decision – Directions – Writ petitions disposed of with directions to petitioners to seek remedy under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings Act – Competent Authority to decide on locus standi, status of revenue rastas, and entitlement to compensation within six months. [Para 42]

Village Common Land – Regularization of Unauthorized Constructions – Civil Writ Petition against rejection of regularization claim – Petitioner constructed house and cattle shed on Panchayat land – Claim based on long-term use by forefathers – Government reconsideration of earlier prohibitions against such claims – Matter remanded for reconsideration under new rules and instructions – Held that petitioner's claim can now be considered under Rule 12(4) in light of new instructions – Impugned order set aside – Directions for passing a fresh speaking order after hearing all parties. [Paras 1-6]

Regularization Criteria – Analysis – Held – Petitioner did not encroach on land reserved for pond or 'rasta' – New government instructions allow for reconsideration of claims previously barred – Remanded for fresh consideration under Rule 12(4) with a speaking order to be issued within one month – Emphasis on fair hearing and opportunity for all aggrieved parties. [Para 4-5]

Decision – Quashing of Impugned Order – Court quashes the order dated 3.5.2017 and remands the matter for reconsideration – Respondent to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with new instructions and relevant rules – Opportunity for hearing to all affected parties to be provided. [Para 6]

Land Law – Easementary Rights – Consolidation Proceedings – Section 42 of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 – Application under Section 42 seeking easementary rights over a passage from Gram Panchayat land dismissed. Held that the application under Section 42 is maintainable only if a passage was not provided during consolidation or if an existing passage is obstructed. No evidence of obstruction or hindrance to easementary rights was found. Petition dismissed on grounds of non-maintainability. [Paras 1-11]

Consolidation Proceedings – Scope of Section 42 – Held, that the jurisdiction to file an application under Section 42 arises only in the absence of a provided passage during consolidation or in cases of obstruction to the use of an existing passage. No objections were raised during consolidation by the landowner, and no subsequent obstructions were documented. Therefore, the application was deemed non-maintainable. [Para 6]

Decision – Quashing of Impugned Order – Petition allowed; the impugned order granting passage from Gram Panchayat land quashed. Remedy for access issues lies in civil suits against the Gram Panchayat. Jurisdiction of the authority under Section 42 does not extend to ordering exchanges of land or creating new passages post-consolidation. [Paras 10-11]

Land Law - Writ Petition - Ejectment Proceedings - Civil Writ Petition challenging order dismissing revision and notice for possession - Petitioners claimed possession of land leased since June 1991 - Evidence insufficient to establish possession before 1950 - Land categorized as Shamlat Deh vested in Gram Panchayat - Petitioners unable to establish prima facie title - Held, writ petition dismissed. [Paras 1-19]

Possession and Title - Analysis - Petitioners failed to produce evidence supporting claim of possession prior to 1950 - Lease from proprietors in 1991 not substantiated - Legal provisions require prima facie case for title dispute to be considered - Petitioners' failure to provide foundational documents - No obligation on authority to frame issues without prima facie proof. [Para 15-16]

Decision - Dismissal of Writ Petition - Court upheld ejectment order - Petitioners did not establish prima facie case of title - Authorities correctly proceeded in summary manner - Petition dismissed due to lack of evidence and substantiation of claims. [Para 17-19]

Service Law - Retrospective Reduction in Salary - Re-designation – Held, the appellant cannot be re-designated to a post for which the revised consolidated remuneration is less than what she was already receiving. Recovery ordered by reducing the monthly remuneration of a contractual employee with retrospective effect is patently illegal. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The appellant is to be designated as Deputy Director with revised remuneration, arrears to be paid, and recovery to be refunded within 3 months, with 7% interest. [Paras 18-21]

Reduction in Salary - Analysis – Held, the reduction in salary with retrospective effect from ₹32,000 to ₹23,000, three and a half years after the appellant had worked, without giving any opportunity of hearing, is unjustified and violates the principles of natural justice. The appellant's salary was protected under the order dated 09.01.2014, which stated that existing staff drawing more than the revised consolidated remuneration would continue to draw the same. [Paras 8-11]

Re-designation - Post Equivalence – Held, the post of Consultant (CSM) is equivalent to Deputy Director (Social Protection & Mainstreaming), and the appellant's redesignation to Assistant Director (CSM) is contrary to the spirit of the orders dated 09.01.2014 and 17.12.2014. The appellant is entitled to be redesignated as Deputy Director with the corresponding remuneration. [Paras 10-18]

Decision - Appeal Allowed – The appeal is accepted, and the impugned orders are set aside. The appellant is to be redesignated as Deputy Director with revised remuneration of ₹36,200 per month. Arrears are to be paid within 3 months, and any recovery effected is to be refunded within the said period, with 7% interest on both amounts. [Paras 21-22]

Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction – Eviction Orders – Section 7 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Petition challenging eviction orders made by the Collector and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Held that the Collector can only assume jurisdiction under Section 7 if the petition is filed by a Panchayat or an officer authorized by the State Government. Petition by private person Dayal Singh was without locus standi and thus misconstituted. However, this defect is curable. Matter remanded to the Collector for fresh decision post authorization of the Sarpanch by Gram Panchayat to substitute the private petitioner. Status quo to be maintained until a lawful decision is made. [Paras 1-8]

Jurisdictional Validity – Role of Private Individuals – Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Held that petitions under Section 7 must be initiated by a Panchayat or an authorized officer, not by private individuals. Submissions accepted regarding the lack of locus standi of the private petitioner. Orders by the Collector and Appellate Authority quashed with directions for fresh proceedings post proper authorization. [Para 4-5]

Decision – Remand for Fresh Decision – Status Quo – Orders quashed on jurisdictional grounds. Gram Panchayat to pass a resolution authorizing the Sarpanch to substitute the private petitioner within specified timelines. Remanded lis to be decided within three months. Parties to maintain status quo regarding the land until a lawful decision on substitution is made. [Para 7-8]

Criminal Law – Juvenile Justice – Regular Bail Petition – Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 – Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – Juvenile petitioner ordered to be tried as an adult. Court held that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, a juvenile in conflict with law is entitled to bail irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence alleged unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would bring the juvenile into association with known criminals or expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice. Petition allowed as grounds for rejection of bail by the lower court were not found germane to Section 12 of the Act. [Paras 1-10]

Interpretation of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act – Conditions for Denial of Bail – Held, conditions such as vulnerability suggested by the Probation Officer and Clinical Psychologist’s opinion on cognitive development are not valid grounds under Section 12 for denying bail. The Court requires concrete material to believe that release would bring association with known criminals or expose to danger. Absence of such material in the present case results in grant of bail to the juvenile petitioner. [Para 7]

Decision – Grant of Bail – Petitioner's case did not fall under exceptions of Section 12 of the Act. Ordered to be released on bail with adequate surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. [Para 9-10]

Specific Performance – Joint Ownership – Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Appeal against decree granting recovery of earnest money instead of specific performance of an agreement to sell. The property was jointly owned by three sons and their mother. Held that each vendor is bound to execute the sale deed to the extent of their individual shares, even if the property is jointly owned. The vendee is entitled to seek partition and get their share demarcated. Questions of inheritance and title are beyond the scope of specific performance. Appeal allowed to the extent of the vendors' shares. [Paras 1-16]

Decree for Specific Performance – Joint Shares – Vendors' Obligations – Held that vendors are obligated to execute the sale deed for their respective shares, irrespective of the joint nature of the property and non-joinder of other co-sharers in the agreement. The vendee can seek partition of the transferred shares. Issues related to inheritance or title are not grounds for denying specific performance. [Para 13]

Decision – Modification of Decree – Appeals allowed; defendants ordered to execute the sale deed for their shares (1/4th each) within three months. Plaintiff entitled to enforce the sale deed through legal process if defendants fail to comply. Judgments and decrees of lower courts modified accordingly. [Para 16]

Property Tax – IT-ITES SEZ Property – Industrial vs. Commercial Rates – Petition challenging levy of property tax at commercial rates on IT-ITES SEZ property – Held, property tax to be levied as per actual usage of the premises – SEZ units cannot claim exemption or industrial rates solely based on SEZ classification – Notifications and statutory provisions mandate commercial rates for IT/ITES activities – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-53]

Statutory Interpretation – SEZ Property Tax – Applicability of Commercial Rates – Held – IT/ITES recognized as industry under Haryana Industrial & Investment Policy, 2011 does not override statutory provisions of Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 – Commercial property tax rates applicable based on usage – SEZ classification does not grant blanket exemption from property tax. [Para 43]

Condonation of Delay – Revision Petition – Applicability of Limitation Act – Held – Section 5 of Limitation Act applicable as there is no express exclusion under the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 – Delay of 53 days in filing revision petition by Municipal Corporation Gurugram condoned considering administrative procedures – Importance of deciding substantive issues over procedural delays. [Para 51]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Impugned order upheld – Property tax levied at commercial rates based on actual usage of SEZ property affirmed – Delay in revision petition condoned – No merit in the petition. [Paras 52-54]