Administrative Law – Policy Change – Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel – Cash Grant in Lieu of Land – Petition challenging government notification changing the mode of compensation from land allotment to cash grant for war widows and other defense personnel's families – Held, doctrine of promissory estoppel applicable only to applications made within the cutoff date of 27.01.1976 under the earlier scheme – New applications to be processed under the impugned notification, doctrine of promissory estoppel not attracted – Notification upheld as a valid policy decision due to non-availability of surplus agricultural land. [Paras 3, 4, 8, 9]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Writ of Certiorari – Petition seeking quashing of notification providing cash grant instead of land allotment dismissed – Notification found not contemptuous of prior court orders – Policy decision within the State Government’s rights – No arbitrariness or discrimination found in the policy. [Paras 1, 7, 11, 12]

Land Law – Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act – Compensation for War Widows – Evolution of policy from land allotment to cash grants due to practical constraints – Adequate compensation determined by considering facts and figures, including Collector's rates – Notification aligned with earlier judicial decisions. [Paras 2, 6, 10]

Decision – Petition dismissed – Notification upheld – State Government’s policy decision to grant cash compensation instead of land is valid and lawful. [Para 12]

Tenancy Law – Eviction – Character of Building – Absence of Zoning Plan – Determination of Building Character – Held, in absence of zoning plan, scheme or notification proving residential or non-residential character of a building, the purpose for which demised premises was let out would determine its character. Here, the building was used for non-residential purposes as shops, and eviction was sought for the same non-residential use. [Para 28, 32]

Tenancy Law – Eviction – Bona Fide Need – Landlord’s Personal Use – Eviction sought for personal use of landlords and their families – Bona fide need established through evidence – Tenants' plea regarding existence of alternative accommodation dismissed – Eviction orders upheld. [Paras 9-10, 25, 33-34]

Procedural Law – Amendment of Written Statement – Order 6, Rule 17 CPC – Application for amendment of written statement to include facts occurring post-petition filing dismissed due to delay and non-necessity – No prejudice to tenant as evidence on the point already considered. [Paras 14-15, 25]

Procedural Law – Additional Evidence – Order 41, Rule 27 CPC – Application for leading additional evidence dismissed – Respondent aware of existence of evidence during trial but chose not to present it – Additional evidence not required for just decision of case. [Paras 13, 26]

Decision – Revision petitions dismissed – Eviction orders upheld based on bona fide need for non-residential use, with procedural applications rightly dismissed by lower courts. [Paras 35-36]

Tenancy Law – Eviction – Character of Building – Absence of Zoning Plan – Determination of Building Character – Held, in absence of zoning plan, scheme or notification proving residential or non-residential character of a building, the purpose for which demised premises was let out would determine its character. Here, the building was used for non-residential purposes as shops, and eviction was sought for the same non-residential use. [Para 28, 32]

Tenancy Law – Eviction – Bona Fide Need – Landlord’s Personal Use – Eviction sought for personal use of landlords and their families – Bona fide need established through evidence – Tenants' plea regarding existence of alternative accommodation dismissed – Eviction orders upheld. [Paras 9-10, 25, 33-34]

Procedural Law – Amendment of Written Statement – Order 6, Rule 17 CPC – Application for amendment of written statement to include facts occurring post-petition filing dismissed due to delay and non-necessity – No prejudice to tenant as evidence on the point already considered. [Paras 14-15, 25]

Procedural Law – Additional Evidence – Order 41, Rule 27 CPC – Application for leading additional evidence dismissed – Respondent aware of existence of evidence during trial but chose not to present it – Additional evidence not required for just decision of case. [Paras 13, 26]

Decision – Revision petitions dismissed – Eviction orders upheld based on bona fide need for non-residential use, with procedural applications rightly dismissed by lower courts. [Paras 35-36]

Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 Complaint - Rebuttable Presumption - Complaint dismissed and respondent acquitted - Respondent rebutted the presumption under Section 139 - Complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-10]

Burden of Proof - Financial Capacity - Analysis - Complainant failed to provide evidence of financial capacity to advance Rs. 5,00,000/- - No documentary evidence presented - Contradictory statements by complainant regarding relationship with respondent and details of loan. [Paras 5-6]

Admission of Signature - No Proof of Debt - Held - Mere admission of signature on cheque insufficient - Respondent claimed misuse of blank signed cheque - Complainant did not discharge burden of proving existence of debt - Presumption under Section 139 rebuttable by preponderance of probabilities. [Paras 7-8]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Trial court's judgment upheld - Complainant failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt - Respondent acquitted - Appeal for leave to appeal dismissed. [Paras 9-10]

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(s) - Definition of Workman - Petitioner’s claim rejected on grounds of involvement in selection process and supervisory work with a salary over Rs. 1600/- per month - Held, Management must prove the dominant nature of duties to exclude an employee from the definition of workman - Reliance on a mere statement of the workman is inadequate - Onus is on the management to lead credible evidence showing the nature of duties assigned. [Para 14-15]

Evidence of Supervisory Role - Management argued petitioner performed supervisory duties based on his signatures on selection documents - Held, signatures alone insufficient to classify petitioner as a supervisor without corroborative evidence - Appointment letter did not specify supervisory responsibilities - Petitioner’s exclusion from workman definition not justified. [Para 15-16]

Issue of Abandonment of Service - Labour Court’s finding of job abandonment by petitioner based on denied entry by security - Held, Management’s directive to deny entry invalidates claim of abandonment - Petitioner justified in claiming wrongful exclusion from duties. [Para 16]

Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement - Considering long period out of service, reinstatement not feasible - Held, compensation awarded as per Apex Court’s principles in lieu of reinstatement - Management directed to pay Rs. 2.50 Lakhs within 3 months or face 7% interest per annum on delayed payment. [Para 19, 21]

Decision:

Writ petition allowed. The award dated 07.05.2010 is set aside. Management directed to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- to the petitioner within 3 months from receipt of certified copy of this order. Failure to pay within the stipulated time will attract additional interest at 7% per annum from the date of the award until recovery. [Para 21]

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 - Transfer of Gram Panchayat Land - Condition to set up sugar mill within two years not fulfilled - Transfer cancelled due to non-fulfillment and improper land value assessment - Held, the condition required setting up the sugar mill within two years failing which land to revert to Gram Panchayat - No illegality in cancellation by the state - Plea of pending litigation and tenant eviction efforts rejected. [Para 10-12]

Land Value Assessment and Litigation - No proper assessment of land value at transfer time - Held, land value for Gram Panchayat was significantly lower than adjoining land acquired through Section 4 notification of the Land Acquisition Act - Apparent object was to grab land at throwaway prices - Petitioner's claims of litigation and eviction efforts insufficient to justify non-compliance with conditions. [Para 11-12]

Decision: Petition dismissed. The state’s cancellation of the land transfer permission upheld. The petitioner's delayed filing and lack of compelling reasons for non-compliance considered. [Para 13-16]

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19(1)(g) - Advocates Act, 1961 - Enrolment Requirement - Government servant challenging the condition requiring enrolment with Bar Council for the post of Assistant District Attorney - Held, enrolment as an advocate is necessary as the Assistant District Attorney appears in court as an advocate on behalf of the government - The condition does not violate Article 19(1)(g) - Petition dismissed. [Paras 5, 8]

Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 - Rule 49 - Practice by Government Servants - Rule 49 bars government servants from practicing as advocates - Held, only those enrolled with the Bar Council are eligible to apply for the post of Assistant District Attorney - Government Pleaders/Public Prosecutors are advocates and must be enrolled with the Bar Council to practice law. [Para 8]

Comparison with Civil Judges - Argument that Civil Judges are not required to be enrolled as advocates - Held, Civil Judges do not practice law; they preside over courts - Comparison with Assistant District Attorneys is misplaced - Enrollment as an advocate is a prerequisite for practicing law, even on behalf of the government. [Para 10]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed. The condition requiring enrolment with the Bar Council for the post of Assistant District Attorney is upheld. No violation of Article 19(1)(g) found. [Para 10]

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Deterioration of Wheat Stock - Petitioner DFSO held responsible for wheat stock deterioration rejected by FCI - No specific evidence of dereliction of duty by the petitioner - Penalty imposed without substantiation - Held, petitioner was only in a supervisory role and took necessary steps to dispose of the stock - Enquiry initiated solely based on stock rejection - Penalty set aside - Retiral benefits to be released. [Para 14]

Lack of Direct Evidence and Supervisory Capacity - Department failed to provide direct evidence of the petitioner's negligence - Petitioner's actions included writing letters for stock disposal - Held, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner without evidence of direct responsibility - Supervisory role limits direct liability - Orders imposing penalty quashed. [Para 14]

Discrimination in Imposition of Penalty - Previous similar cases resulted in exoneration of employees - Held, imposition of penalty on petitioner discriminatory - Previous departmental instructions on wheat shelf life not considered in enquiry - Discrimination and lack of evidence warrant setting aside of penalty. [Paras 13, 14]

Decision: Both petitions allowed. Impugned orders dated March 29, 2010, and July 17, 2015, set aside. Petitioner entitled to all consequential retiral benefits. Respondents directed to calculate and disburse retiral benefits within two months, failing which interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition until payment. [Para 15]

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 65 and 66(2) - Secondary Evidence - Application for leading secondary evidence without issuing notice under Section 66 - Held, court has discretion to determine the necessity of notice before leading secondary evidence - Notice not required if the adverse party is aware that the document will be required - Petition dismissed as respondents established that petitioners had knowledge of the will. [Paras 18-19]

Court's Discretion and Adverse Party's Knowledge - Discretion granted to court under Section 66 to decide on the need for notice before allowing secondary evidence - Held, notice under Section 66(2) not required if the adverse party would know that the will needs to be produced - Respondents' claim that the original will was with the petitioners was considered valid. [Para 17]

Case Law Application - Reliance on co-ordinate bench judgment in Chaman Lal vs. Davin (2010) (2) PLR 758 - Case not applicable as it involved an unregistered will and different circumstances - Held, registered will's copy admissible for secondary evidence without notice if petitioners aware of its existence. [Para 14]

Decision: Petition dismissed. Trial court's order allowing secondary evidence upheld. Observations are limited to the application for secondary evidence and do not affect the final judgment on the will's authenticity. [Para 20]

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 506, 148, 149 - Conviction - Complainant party alleged accused of committing murder - Medical evidence indicated a 12 bore shot fired from close range, contradicting the complainant's version of indiscriminate firing from a distance - Held, the medical evidence did not support the ocular version of the complainant and eyewitnesses - Conviction set aside due to lack of corroboration from medical evidence - Appeal allowed. [Paras 39-41]

Evidentiary Standards and Corroboration - Injuries indicated a shot fired from a distance of 2-3 feet, not from 10 feet as claimed by the complainant - Held, injuries caused to the deceased were unlikely from the alleged distance - Blackening and deflection of pellets supported close-range firing - Medical evidence deemed more reliable than inconsistent eyewitness testimony - Conviction based on unreliable ocular evidence overturned. [Paras 22-23]

Role of Motive and Investigation Flaws - Accused allegedly motivated by previous electoral defeat of the accused's relative - Police investigation found the complainant's version unreliable - Held, motive alone insufficient to convict without credible evidence - Flawed investigation and lack of reliable evidence necessitated acquittal - Conviction and sentences of all accused set aside. [Paras 36-38]

Decision: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentences under Sections 302, 307, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act set aside. Accused acquitted of all charges. [Para 51]