Service Law – Dismissal and Reinstatement – Salary and Allowances – Petitioner working as constable suspended due to criminal charges – Dismissed upon conviction – Acquitted and reinstated – Order treating period from dismissal to reinstatement as “dies non” challenged – Held, detention due to criminal charge considered beyond control of employee – Non-working period does not invite principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ – Full salary and allowances granted upon reinstatement – Petition allowed. [Para 7]

Suspension Period – Analysis – Petitioner acquitted and reinstated without departmental proceedings – Period of absence treated as duty – Supreme Court precedents support full pay and allowances upon reinstatement after acquittal – Orders denying benefits for period under dismissal unsustainable – Respondents directed to calculate and release salary and allowances. [Para 7-10]

Decision – Order Treating Period as “Dies Non” – Order treating period from dismissal to reinstatement as “dies non” quashed – Petitioner entitled to salary and allowances for period from dismissal to reinstatement – Authorities directed to consider suspension period as well – Petition allowed. [Para 10-13]

Administrative Law - Recruitment - Examination Fraud - Natural Justice - Judicial Review- Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - No Vested Right – Civil writ petition under Article 226 challenging the decision to scrap the merit list and re-conduct the Naib Tehsildar examination – Held: The petitioners do not acquire any vested right merely because they were shortlisted. No appointment letters were issued, and thus, the question of violation of principles of natural justice does not arise. [Para 13]

Decision to Scrap Merit List - Integrity of Selection Process – Analysis – Held: A bona fide decision by the government to ensure the integrity of the selection process should not be interfered with by the court. The sufficiency of material for such a decision does not fall within the scope of judicial review. [Para 17]

Preventing Exploitation by Tainted Candidates – Consideration – Held: Efforts must be made to ensure that the recruitment process is not exploited by tainted candidates. Though non-tainted candidates may have to reappear for the exam, it is in the larger interest to ensure that only candidates of unblemished character are appointed. [Para 18]

Decision: The writ petition is dismissed. The court emphasizes the need for the respondent-State and the Punjab Public Service Commission to conduct a fresh examination as expeditiously as possible, considering the recruitment notice was issued over two years ago. [Para 19]

Land Law – Eviction from Shamlat Deh Land – Section 7 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Challenge to eviction orders passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade and upheld by higher authorities. Petitioners constructed a house on land recorded in revenue records as owned and cultivated by Gram Panchayat (Makbuja Gram Panchayat). Held that the entry in the revenue records carries a presumption of truth which was not rebutted by the petitioners through cogent evidence. The Gram Panchayat is empowered to seek eviction based on these entries. Writ petition dismissed with directions for potential legal purchase of land. [Paras 1-10]

Revenue Records – Presumption of Truth – Makbuja Gram Panchayat – Held, the presumption of truth attached to revenue entries showing Gram Panchayat as owner and cultivator was not rebutted by petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners had no lawful entitlement to the land. The Gram Panchayat's application for eviction was validly supported by these entries. [Para 8]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Sale of Land Option – Writ petition dismissed due to lack of evidence rebutting revenue records. Petitioners given option to move for legal purchase of the land from the Gram Panchayat within specified timelines, subject to approval by competent authority. [Para 9-10]

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Variance in Statements – Appeal by complainant against trial court’s acquittal of accused under Sections 376 and 511 IPC – Allegations of attempted rape by prosecutrix’s brother-in-law – Discrepancies in prosecutrix's statements during different stages of investigation – Trial court found gross embellishments damaging prosecutrix’s credibility – Appeal dismissed – Held that variant stands of prosecutrix and failure to collect material evidence like the broken cord of salwar weaken the prosecution’s case. [Paras 1-21]

Evidence – Credibility of Witness – Improvements and Embellishments – Held – Detailed scrutiny of prosecutrix's written statements and testification required – Gross improvements or embellishments in her statements at different stages damage credibility – Prosecutrix's allegations of physical assault and attempted rape not supported by consistent testimony or material evidence. [Para 20]

Investigation – Collection of Evidence – Importance of Material Evidence – Held – Investigating officer's failure to collect critical evidence like the prosecutrix’s salwar and the broken cord further weakens the prosecution's case – Such omissions create doubt about the veracity of the allegations. [Para 20]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal Upheld – Court finds no merit in the appeal – Acquittal of accused by the trial court affirmed due to lack of credible evidence and procedural inconsistencies – Case property to be dealt with as per law – Accused’s personal and surety bonds canceled and discharged. [Paras 21-23]

Land Laws – Village Common Land – Eviction – Petition by Gram Panchayat for land described as Gair MumkinChappar/pond within abadi deh – Collector dismissed the eviction petition, holding land does not vest in Gram Panchayat – Appellate Authority reversed, holding pond within abadi deh vests in Gram Panchayat under Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Writ petition against Appellate Authority’s order – Held, pond within abadi deh is included under Section 2(g) – Petition dismissed subject to lawful demarcation by Competent Revenue Officer. [Paras 1-12]

Eviction of Encroachers – Gram Panchayat's Right – Held – Gram Panchayat entitled to claim removal of illegal encroachments on ponds within abadi deh – Section 2(g) includes ponds within abadi deh for common use – Legal requirement for valid demarcation to establish existence within abadi deh. [Para 8-9]

Demarcation – Legal Requirement – Requirement for lawful demarcation by competent authority – Best evidence for supporting claims – Concurrently made eviction orders without valid demarcation vitiated – Case remanded for fresh decision after lawful demarcation and proof. [Para 10-11]

Decision – Quashing of Appellate Order – Court quashes impugned order by Appellate Authority – Case remanded for lawful decision after valid demarcation by Competent Revenue Officer – New decision to be made within six months after hearing all affected parties. [Para 10-12]

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]

Criminal Law – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Modified – Probation Granted – Petitioner convicted under Sections 279, 304-A, and 337 IPC for causing death and injuries by rash and negligent driving – Sentenced to imprisonment and fine by Trial Court; conviction upheld by Appellate Court – In revision, petitioner restricted challenge to quantum of sentence – High Court upheld conviction but granted benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, considering reformation, absence of mens rea, long lapse of time since incident (24 years), and clean record since – Directed to furnish bond and maintain peace for two years [Paras 1–4, 12–13].

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Section 4 – Applicability – Accident not intentional – Mens rea absent – Petitioner was a government employee, dismissed from service due to conviction – No subsequent criminal involvement for over two decades – Held: Reformative purpose of probation laws justifies probation in non-grave, negligent offences – Releasing petitioner on probation is in interest of justice [Paras 10–13].

Sentencing – Reformative Jurisprudence – Lengthy Litigation and Clean Record Considered – Petitioner facing trial since 1999, no misuse of bail, and not involved in any other case – Held: No useful purpose served by incarceration after long period of litigation and demonstrated reformation – Sentencing should aim for reformation, especially when imprisonment may cause more harm [Paras 10–12].