Land Law - Validity of Notice - Demarcation - Natural Justice-Validity of Notice - Demarcation Requirement – Civil writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging a notice issued under Section 24(1) of the Haryana Gram Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Held: For a notice to be valid under Section 24(1), a prior valid demarcation of the concerned site by a competent Revenue Officer is required. The absence of such demarcation renders the notice invalid. [Paras 2, 11]

Natural Justice - Service of Notice – Analysis – Held: The notice must be validly served upon all respondents to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice. Non-service of the notice to any respondent results in the proceedings being vitiated due to the breach of natural justice principles. [Paras 3, 9]

Summary Proceedings vs. Fully Contested Proceedings – Consideration – Held: Proceedings under Section 24 of the Haryana Gram Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, are summary in nature. In cases requiring extensive evidence regarding the inclusion of land within the Gram Panchayat, recourse should be taken to fully contested proceedings under Sections 7 or 11 of the Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, before the Collector. [Paras 10, 14]

Land Law - Eviction - Evidence of Ownership and Possession – Held, the Gram Panchayat failed to establish through relevant revenue entries that the disputed land belonged to it. The authorities below did not call for cogent evidence of valid possession by the Gram Panchayat, leading to arbitrary and slipshod eviction orders. The impugned orders are quashed, and the petition is accepted. [Paras 1-6]

Interim Injunction - Demarcation Report – Held, the Civil Judge granted interim injunction to the petitioners based on a demarcation report indicating no encroachment by the petitioners. Despite an appeal against this order, the authorities proceeded with eviction without independent demarcation or proving the report per law. [Para 6]

Decision - Quashing of Eviction Orders – The writ petition is accepted, and the concurrent eviction orders by the District Divisional and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Hoshiarpur, and the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, are quashed. Future enforcement depends on any adverse binding conclusion by the Civil Court. [Paras 7-8]

Writ Jurisdiction - Availability of Alternative Remedy – Held, where a statutory remedy is provided, the Writ Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge erred in entertaining the writ petition without relegating the petitioner to the alternative remedy available under the statutory provisions. [Para 10]

Non-impleadment of Necessary Parties - Impact on Proceedings – Held, the appellants were not made parties to the writ petition, yet directions were issued affecting their rights. This procedural lapse is another ground for setting aside the order. [Para 11]

Decision - Appeal Allowed – The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order dated 21.06.2016 is set aside. Respondent No.8 is directed to avail the alternative remedy within three months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. [Para 13]

Negotiable Instruments Act - Premature Complaint - Section 138, Proviso Clause (c) & Section 142(b) - Complaint filed 12 days after notice - Mandatory 15 days not expired - Complaint not maintainable being premature - Appeal dismissed. [Para 12]

Dishonour of Cheque - Rebuttal of Presumption under Section 139 - Acquittal - Testimony of attesting witness and expert report confirmed signatures of complainant on receipt acknowledging repayment - Complainant failed to prove cheque was issued for legally recoverable debt - No infirmity in acquittal order - Appeal against acquittal dismissed. [Paras 9-11]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeal - Special leave to appeal denied - Court finds no perversity or infirmity in trial court's judgment - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 14-15]

Land Laws - Unauthorized Possession - Gair Marusi Land - Article 226 of the Constitution - Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1969 - Land reserved during consolidation for Kumharan community for pottery use - Petitioner's predecessor entered as Gair Marusi but started cultivation - Unauthorized use impermissible - Non-occupancy tenants have no vested rights to continue possession especially when original land use unchanged - Petition dismissed. [Para 8]

Reserved Land Use - Valid Reservation - Validity and Unchallenged Status - Reservation for pottery by Kumharan community during consolidation - Valid unless challenged within permissible period - Presumed beneficial to village proprietary body - Cultivation by non-community member unauthorized. [Paras 5-6]

Decision - Dismissal of Petition - Concurrent orders by authorities affirmed - Petitioner's cultivation unauthorized and non-compliant with reserved use - Eviction order upheld - No merit in petition. [Paras 9-10]

Land Laws - Exchange of Land - Validating Order - Natural Justice - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution - Section 7 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 - Rule 5 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 - Land exchanged through validating order cannot be arbitrarily recalled without complying with principles of natural justice - Equivalence of monetary value and health of inhabitants well considered - Petition allowed. [Para 17]

Exchange of Land - Validating Order and Natural Justice - Land classified as 'JumlaMustarka Malkan' in ownership column and 'Gair MumkinHadda Rori' in classification column - Held, conjoint reading of terms does not bar proposed exchange if resolution is well informed and approved by competent authority - Validating order cannot be arbitrarily recalled without natural justice compliance. [Para 17]

Decision - Quashing of Orders - Petition allowed - Orders in Annexures P-6 and P-10 quashed - Exchange validated by Gram Panchayat resolution well considered - Health risks to inhabitants justified exchange - Subsequent market value increases irrelevant post-validation. [Para 18]

Criminal Law – Conviction Appeal – FIR Delay – Weapon Non-recovery – Appeal against conviction under Sections 341 and 307 IPC – Occurrence at 3 PM on 25.01.2003 – Injured taken to hospital, FIR registered at 1:50 AM on 26.01.2003 – Delay in FIR explained due to medical emergencies – Non-recovery of weapon does not affect prosecution credibility – Conviction upheld. [Paras 1-12]

Incident Details – Injuries – Held – Appellant fired shots at the victim, causing serious injuries – Medical evidence corroborates prosecution – Injured witness, complainant, and eyewitnesses supported prosecution case – No ground for false implication. [Para 11]

Judicial Reasoning – Credibility of Witnesses – Held – Witness testimonies consistent and corroborated by medical evidence – Injured witness had no reason to falsely implicate appellant – Non-recovery of weapon justified as appellant arrested after significant delay. [Paras 10-11]

Decision – Conviction Affirmed – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment of Trial Court based on correct appreciation of evidence – Appellant to surrender within 15 days – Non-bailable warrants if appellant fails to surrender – Appeal dismissed, pending applications disposed. [Paras 12-16]

Service Law - Seniority - Compassionate Appointments - Administrative Instructions vs. Statutory Rules-Seniority - Compassionate Appointments vs. Direct Recruits – Civil writ petition under Articles 14 and 226 challenging the seniority list dated 22.03.2012 – Held: Seniority must be granted in accordance with statutory service rules. Administrative instructions cannot override statutory rules. The competent authority erred in granting seniority to private respondents based on administrative instructions rather than the date of their appointment to the cadre. [Paras 13-14]

Statutory Rules Superseding Administrative Instructions – Analysis – Held: Rule 16 of the 1984 Rules mandates that seniority is determined by the order of appointment to the service. Compassionate appointments are exceptions made under extraordinary circumstances, and once appointed, those members are governed by the same rules as other employees. Administrative instructions supplement but cannot supplant statutory rules. [Paras 13-14]

Delay in Challenging Seniority List - Justification – Consideration – Held: The objection regarding delay in challenging the seniority list is not valid as the petitioners were unaware of the decision until the final seniority list was issued on 22.03.2012, and they promptly challenged it. The previous order dated 09.10.2009 was not communicated to the affected members. [Paras 17-18]

Decision: The seniority list dated 22.03.2012 is quashed. The competent authority is directed to prepare a fresh seniority list strictly in accordance with the 1984 rules within three months. All consequential effects on promotions must follow based on the new seniority list. [Paras 23-25]

Labour Law - Compensation for Retrenchment - Sufficiency of Compensation – Held, the respondent, having worked for 2 years, was adequately compensated with Rs.1 lakh, which was already paid. The Single Judge was justified in setting aside the Labour Court's award based on the respondent not completing 240 days of work. The appeal is partly allowed. [Paras 1-12]

Determination of Compensation - Analysis – Held, the Apex Court's precedents were considered, indicating compensation amounts for various periods of service. For a 2-year service period, Rs.1 lakh is sufficient compensation. This aligns with compensation granted in similar cases, making further compensation unnecessary. [Para 10]

Decision - Appeal Partly Allowed – The court concludes that the Rs.1 lakh compensation already paid is sufficient. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed, confirming the compensation for the service period of 2 years. [Para 11]