Land Law – Mutation Entry – Allegation of Fraud – The petitioners challenged orders that set aside Mutation No. 4072, dated 30.03.2006, claiming it was entered without their signatures and alleging fraud by the respondents in connivance with revenue officials. The court remanded the case to the Commissioner, Patiala Division, for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that procedural fairness and a review of the facts are essential [Paras 1-5].

Review of Mutation Orders – Jurisdiction and Procedural Fairness – The petitioners argued that previous orders did not consider the alleged fraud in the mutation process and that the Deputy Commissioner's direction for a review was ignored. The Financial Commissioner’s order to set aside the mutation was challenged for being prejudicial without proper examination of the facts and procedural fairness [Paras 2-3].

Application of Judicial Precedents – The court referenced the cases Bhartu Vs. Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 204 and Jai Singh Vs. Gurmej Singh, 2009(15) SCC 747, emphasizing that consent and signatures are crucial for validating a family partition agreement. The petitioners’ reliance on these cases underscores the importance of established judicial principles in assessing the validity of the mutation [Para 2].

Remand for Fresh Decision – The court found no infirmity in the Financial Commissioner’s decision to remand the case to the Commissioner, Patiala Division, for a fresh decision. The Commissioner was directed to issue notices, hear both sides, and decide the case independently, considering all points raised, and not be influenced by prior observations [Paras 4-5].

Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the Commissioner, Patiala Division, to decide the case afresh, considering all contentions and adhering to procedural fairness. The Commissioner is to complete the proceedings within three months from the receipt of the order [Paras 5-6].

Attempt to Murder – Reduction of Sentence – Appellant convicted under Section 307 IPC for attempting to murder the complainant by assaulting with an axe – Conviction under Sections 504 and 506-II IPC also imposed – Court finds lack of intention to kill; injury caused not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature – Conviction under Section 307 reduced to Section 326 IPC – Sentence reduced to 3 years RI with fine – Conviction under Sections 504 and 506-II IPC set aside [Paras 1-36].

Interested Witnesses – Credibility – Testimonies of related witnesses scrutinized – Court holds testimonies reliable despite minor contradictions – Affirms principle that related witness testimonies hold probative value if corroborated by evidence [Paras 13-17].

Independent Witnesses – Absence – Non-examination of independent witnesses not fatal – Incident occurred in agricultural field, natural absence of independent witnesses – Prosecution case supported by medical evidence and injured’s testimony upheld [Paras 19-22].

Decision:

Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC set aside and replaced with conviction under Section 326 IPC – Appellant sentenced to 3 years RI with a fine of Rs.10,000/- – Conviction under Sections 504 and 506-II IPC set aside – Appellant to be released after serving the sentence and paying the fine – Fine amount, if already paid, to be adjusted and Rs.10,000/- to be compensated to the injured [Paras 36-40].

Co-operative Societies – Amendment of Rules – Petitioners challenged amendments made by the Registrar acting as an Administrator – Claimed amendments were illegal and contrary to the 1961 Act and 1963 Rules – Court found Registrar's actions to be a colourable exercise of power – Administrator cannot take policy decisions or amend rules unilaterally – Amendments quashed [Paras 1-20].

Registrar's Dual Role – Registrar appointed himself as an Administrator and subsequently approved his own recommendations – Court held this as a conflict of interest and a violation of cooperative principles and legal provisions – Emphasized the necessity of an independent and unbiased procedure for such amendments [Paras 12-19].

Doctrine of Necessities – Doctrine inapplicable in this case – Administrator cannot take policy decisions that fundamentally alter the cooperative structure – Cooperative societies should maintain autonomy in managing their affairs [Para 14].

Relief – Amendments made in the 1970-71 Rules by the Administrator and approved by the Registrar quashed – Petitioners allowed to challenge departmental actions in appropriate forums if necessary [Paras 20-21].

Industrial Law – Wrongful Termination – Compliance with ID Act – The case involved the State of Punjab's challenge to the Industrial Tribunal's award, which found the termination of Kamaljit, a work-woman, to be in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal had ordered her reinstatement with 50% back-wages from the date of the demand notice, citing non-compliance with Section 25-F of the ID Act [Paras 1-2].

Nature of Employment – Classification as Industry – The petitioners argued that the Forest Department was not an 'Industry' under the ID Act. The Tribunal, however, referred to precedents establishing the Forest Department as an 'Industry' and rejected this contention. The Tribunal's conclusion was based on precedents like Divisional Forest Officer vs. Jagdish and others, 2003(4) RSJ 264 [Para 4].

Inconsistent Testimony and Employment Records – The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the management's witness statements regarding Kamaljit's employment duration, ultimately determining that she was employed from October 1998 to December 2000. This inconsistency supported the Tribunal's finding of wrongful termination [Paras 5-16].

Modification of Award – Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement – Citing similar cases where compensation was awarded instead of reinstatement, the court modified the Tribunal’s order. Kamaljit was awarded a lump-sum compensation of ₹3.50 lakhs, considering she had attained superannuation and had rendered over two years of service before termination [Paras 6-8].

Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a modification of the Tribunal's award. Kamaljit was awarded ₹3.50 lakhs as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, to be paid within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be applicable.
 

Civil Procedure – Recovery of Possession – Appeal against the judgment of the First Appellate Court which reversed the Trial Court’s decree in favor of the plaintiff for the recovery of possession of 2 cottahs of land – First Appellate Court set aside the decree on grounds of insufficient description of the suit property and non-joinder of necessary parties – High Court examined the sufficiency of property description and the necessity of additional parties – Found the property description clear and the non-joinder of parties non-prejudicial – Judgment of the First Appellate Court set aside; decree of the Trial Court restored [Paras 1-24].

Property Description – Sufficiency – Suit property adequately described through schedules and a sketch map appended to the plaint – Property identifiable by boundaries and specific plot numbers – High Court emphasized that boundaries generally prevail over other descriptions for identification – Found that the property was sufficiently described to grant a decree [Paras 12-13].

Non-Joinder of Parties – Necessity – Appellant/plaintiff purchased a demarcated portion of land with clear boundaries – No evidence that other co-sharers needed to be impleaded – High Court determined that non-joinder of alleged co-sharers did not affect the enforceability of the decree – Reversed the First Appellate Court’s judgment on this ground [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeal allowed – First Appellate Court’s judgment reversed – Trial Court’s decree restored – Respondent granted time to vacate and hand over possession by 31.10.2024 – High Court affirmed the right, title, and interest of the appellant over the suit property – Emphasized adherence to procedural and substantive laws in deciding possession suits [Paras 20-22].

Criminal Law – Section 138 of the N.I. Act – Issuance of Security Cheques – Legal Enforceability:
Petitions filed to quash criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheques issued by petitioners as security for employment contracts – Petitioners argued no legally enforceable debt existed at the time of issuance – Respondents contended cheques were dishonored due to breach of contract terms – High Court held the relevant date for determining enforceability is the date of presentation – Cheques issued as security can attract Section 138 if liability exists at the time of presentation [Paras 1-20].

Contractual Obligations and Security Cheques – Burden of Proof:
Petitioners argued cheques were not for discharge of debt but as indemnity against future losses – Court observed that legal liability on the date of presentation suffices for Section 138 – Burden on the drawer to rebut presumption of liability under the Act – Arguments about invalid contracts and lack of enforceability to be examined during trial, not at the quashing stage [Paras 10-12, 20].
Decision: Petitions dismissed – Criminal proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act to continue – Trial court directed to expedite proceedings given the pendency since 2017 – Petitioners allowed to present evidence and challenge the enforceability of the alleged debt during trial [Paras 21-22].
 

Minority at Time of Sale Deed – Proof of Identity – The primary issue in both appeals was whether the plaintiff, Rattan Kaur @ Paramjit Kaur, was a minor when she executed the sale deeds. The plaintiff argued that she was a minor based on her birth certificate showing her date of birth as 15.09.1968, which she claimed was issued under the name Rattan Kaur. The First Appellate Court, however, found that the plaintiff failed to prove she was known by the name Rattan Kaur and that she was indeed a minor at the time of the sale deeds [Paras 1-12].

Discrepancies in Name and Evidence – The First Appellate Court determined that the plaintiff's claim was unsubstantiated as her name in school and revenue records was listed as Paramjit Kaur, not Rattan Kaur. The court also noted that her mother and brothers, who could have corroborated her claim, were not examined as witnesses, and the testimonies of the plaintiff and her sister were deemed unreliable [Paras 10-11].

Appellate Review – No Illegality in Findings – Upon review, the High Court upheld the findings of the First Appellate Court, emphasizing that the lower court's judgment was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence. The High Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them, noting the absence of any substantial evidence to support the plaintiff's claims [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Both appeals were dismissed due to lack of merit. The judgments of the lower courts were upheld, confirming that the plaintiff failed to prove she was known as Rattan Kaur and that she was a minor at the time of the sale deeds.

Civil Law - Partition of Property – Appeal against the trial court’s decree for partition of properties managed by the eldest brother under familial agreement - First defendant managed the properties on behalf of his brothers, with deeds in his name - Claims of prior partition by defendants not substantiated by documentary evidence or credible witness testimony - Trial court’s decision to decree partition affirmed. [Paras 13-21]

Burden of Proof – Defendants failed to substantiate the claim of prior partition which allegedly excluded certain properties from the current suit - Lack of documentary evidence such as revenue records or credible witness accounts to support defendants' claims of earlier partition - Plaintiffs’ unchallenged testimony and factual background led to the confirmation of joint family property status. [Paras 15, 17]

Non-joinder of Parties – Contention regarding non-joinder of necessary parties dismissed - Defendants failed to prove that their relatives were put in possession under an unregistered sale agreement claimed by them - Trial court’s decision not to implead additional parties upheld due to the failure of defendants to prove the genuineness of the transaction. [Paras 19, 20]

Decision: Appeal dismissed, confirming the trial court’s judgment dated 03.08.2000 for partition of the plaint A schedule properties, with each party bearing their own costs.

Property Law – Validity of Gift Deeds – Prior Execution – The case involved multiple appeals and cross-objections arising from disputes over two gift deeds executed by Raj Kishan. The first gift deed, dated 01.09.1997, favored Raj Pal, while the second, dated 14.10.1997, favored Raj Kishan's five daughters. The court held that the earlier executed gift deed took precedence under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, rendering the subsequent gift deed subservient [Paras 13-20].

Doctrine of Feeding the Grant by Estoppel – The court invoked this doctrine, determining that after the death of Ram Kala, his five daughters, as his legal representatives, became the owners of the property. The sale deed in favor of defendant Nos. 10 to 12 was upheld based on this doctrine, ensuring the proper transfer of ownership [Para 20].

Legal Representatives and Procedural Aspects – Delay in Filing – The court condoned the delay in re-filing and filing cross-objections, recognizing the supporting affidavits and justifiable reasons presented in the applications [Paras 1-4].

Adverse Inference and Evidence – The court noted that Ram Kala's failure to appear in evidence allowed for an adverse inference against him. It emphasized the necessity of cross-examination opportunities for the defendants, which were missed due to procedural lapses [Paras 22-23].

Decision: The judgments of the lower courts were set aside due to subsequent developments. Raj Pal remained the owner of the land by virtue of the earlier gift deed, and defendant Nos. 10 to 12 were confirmed as owners through the sale deed dated 17.03.1998. Cross-objections regarding Ram Kala's mental state were deemed unnecessary to address following his death [Paras 23-25].