Land Law - Common Lands - Shamlat Deh and Jumla Malkan – The Court held that there are two primary types of lands for common purposes: 'Shamlat Deh' lands vest with the Panchayat under Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, while 'Jumla Malkan' lands, reserved under Section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, are managed by the Gram Panchayat but vest in the village proprietary body – The procedure for removing encroachments differs based on the type of land. [Paras 8, 15]

Procedural Law - Encroachment Removal - Specific Procedures for Different Land Types – For 'Shamlat Deh' lands, the procedure under the 1961 Act must be followed – For 'Jumla Malkan' lands, the Punjab Gram Panchayat (Common Purposes Land) Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1976, read with the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, applies – These procedures ensure the correct legal pathway is followed depending on the land type. [Paras 15, 16]

Case Analysis - Evidence and Procedure for Encroachments – The petitioners alleged encroachments on land owned by the Gram Panchayat, presenting evidence such as jamabandis and survey plans – Court directed that the Gram Panchayat or relevant officer ascertain encroachments and apply the appropriate legal procedure for removal, considering the type of common land involved. [Paras 3-6, 12]

Judicial Precedents - Importance of Following Statutory Procedures – Reiterated principles from State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh and Gram Panchayat village Sidh v. Addl. Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab regarding adherence to statutory procedures for acts authorized by legislation – Ensured that eviction proceedings are conducted lawfully with due consideration of the land type and rights of parties involved. [Paras 10, 13]

Decision: Petition disposed of – Gram Panchayat directed to ascertain the nature of the land and proceed with encroachment removal following the specific statutory procedures – Ensured due process and proper legal steps are taken to address the encroachments. [Para 18]

Constitutional Law - Gram Panchayat Autonomy - Utilization of Funds – Petitioners, Gram Panchayats, challenged State instructions dated 05.02.2015 directing transfer of grants to the Executive Engineer for executing development works – Court held that Gram Panchayats are bodies corporate and institutions of self-government as per Articles 243, 243-G, and 243-H of the Constitution – Funds received by Gram Panchayats under Sections 39 and 40(a) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, can only be utilized by the Panchayat, not by government officers – State Government has no jurisdiction to direct that Panchayat funds be used by Government officers/officials – Instructions and rules inconsistent with constitutional provisions and the 1994 Act set aside. [Paras 1, 21-22]

Judicial Precedents - Gram Panchayat Autonomy – Referred to decisions in Gram Panchayat Village Mann v. State of Punjab, Gram Panchayat Village Barona v. State of Haryana, and Gram Panchayat Khippannwali v. State of Punjab where similar actions by the State were held unconstitutional – Affirmed that the State cannot override the autonomous functioning of Gram Panchayats as enshrined in the Constitution. [Para 8]

State's Argument and Court's Rejection – State argued that the instructions were in line with guidelines and amendments aimed at ensuring proper utilization of funds – Court rejected this, emphasizing the autonomy of Gram Panchayats and invalidating any administrative instructions contrary to constitutional and statutory provisions – The State can take action against Sarpanch/Panches for misuse or embezzlement of grants as per Section 20(1)(e) of the 1994 Act. [Paras 10, 17, 19, 21]

Decision: Petition allowed – Instructions dated 05.02.2015 set aside – State Government's rules and instructions found inconsistent with constitutional provisions and Sections 39 and 40 of the 1994 Act deemed inapplicable – Writ petitions allowed, and COCP No. 1817 of 2016 rendered infructuous. [Paras 22-24]

Constitutional Law - Transfer Policy - Medical Grounds – Petitioner's transfer orders dated 17.09.2016 and 01.12.2016 were challenged based on the medical condition of her daughter, who suffers from "Epilepsy Severe Mental Retardation" – Transfer policy dated 29.06.2016 did not include this condition in the notified list of diseases – Court directed the respondents to re-consider the petitioner’s claim by allowing her additional points for the serious ailment of her daughter, thereby quashing the impugned transfer orders. [Paras 1-4]

Medical Evidence - Disability and Transfer Policy – Medical certificates from the Chief Medical Officer, Civil Surgeon, Mahendrgarh, and the Principal Medical Officer, General Hospital, Ambala City confirmed the daughter’s severe disability – Respondents initially rejected the petitioner’s claim but later acknowledged it in their reply – Court emphasized that the medical condition warrants immediate consideration without delay. [Paras 1, 4]

Administrative Efficiency - Timely Consideration of Special Cases – Despite logistic reasons delaying the second transfer drive, Court highlighted the urgency of the petitioner’s situation due to the medical condition of her daughter – Directed immediate action within one month, independent of the scheduled transfer drives. [Paras 3-4]

Decision: Petition allowed – Respondents directed to grant 10 additional marks to the petitioner for her daughter's severe disability and issue a transfer order as per her entitlement within one month – Clarified that this action should be taken regardless of the second transfer drive. [Paras 4-5]

Medical Education - Incentives for In-Service Candidates - NEET and PG Admissions – The petitioner challenged Clause 2 of the State government notification dated 21.04.2017, which provided a maximum incentive of 20% of marks obtained in NEET to in-service candidates and Clause 7 of the Prospectus giving additional weightage to candidates passing MBBS/BDS from recognized colleges in Haryana – Held, as per the Supreme Court judgment in Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan's case, the State lacks authority to enact laws or issue executive instructions for admission procedures for PG medical courses – The incentives for service in remote/difficult areas should be uniformly applicable for all state schemes, not just for admissions – The identification of such areas must be properly examined and defined – Notifications were contrary to the Regulations and the Supreme Court judgment – Notifications dated 05.05.2017 were quashed – Fresh counseling ordered. [Paras 1-3, 12-16, 30-32, 44, 52-54, 58]

Judicial Precedents - Compliance with Supreme Court Judgment – Despite the Supreme Court's clear directive in Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan's case, the State issued conflicting notifications – State's action in notifying remote/difficult areas hurriedly without proper examination deemed violative – Repeated violations and non-compliance with judicial precedents condemned – Court ordered remedial measures and imposed costs on the State. [Paras 30-34, 44, 52-56]

Judicial Review - Procedural Irregularities and Government Responsibility – Court emphasized the need for proper procedure and adherence to judicial directives in administrative actions – Highlighted the adverse effects of arbitrary decisions on candidates' education and careers – Directed setting up of a committee to prevent future lapses and to ensure accountability – Imposed costs on the State for irresponsible actions. [Paras 52-56]

Decision: Petition allowed – Notifications dated 21.04.2017 and 05.05.2017 set aside – State directed to conduct fresh counseling and to issue proper notifications in line with the Supreme Court judgment and relevant regulations – Costs of Rs. 1 lakh awarded to each petitioner due to the State's irresponsible actions. [Paras 55-58]

RTI Act - Confidentiality of In-House Judicial Probes – Petitioner, Punjab and Haryana High Court, contested an order by the State Information Commission directing inspection of records and complaints related to an in-house probe of judges – Court held in-house probes are confidential for maintaining institutional credibility and should not be disclosed to third parties – The RTI Act's Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information from disclosure that would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy unless larger public interest justifies it – The information sought was deemed confidential and not disclosable. [Paras 15-16]

Judicial Integrity and Public Trust - Confidential Inquiries – Referred to Supreme Court judgments in Additional District and Sessions Judge, X. v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and C. Ravi Chandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee & Ors., which emphasize keeping in-house judicial inquiries confidential to protect judicial integrity – Such proceedings are sensitive and should remain inaccessible to the public. [Para 15]

Contempt of Court - Misuse of RTI Act – The respondent No. 2, a chronic complainant, sought information for ulterior motives – Held, misuse of RTI provisions to procure information for harassment or scandalizing the judiciary is prohibited – Court emphasized protecting the judiciary's functioning from mischievous litigants. [Paras 1, 10]

Decision: Petition allowed – State Information Commission's order dated April 7, 2015, directing inspection of records and provision of information set aside – Confidentiality of in-house judicial probes upheld – RTI application dismissed on grounds of misuse and lack of public interest. [Paras 16-17]

RTI Act - Confidentiality of In-House Judicial Probes – Petitioner, Punjab and Haryana High Court, contested an order by the State Information Commission directing inspection of records and complaints related to an in-house probe of judges – Court held in-house probes are confidential for maintaining institutional credibility and should not be disclosed to third parties – The RTI Act's Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information from disclosure that would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy unless larger public interest justifies it – The information sought was deemed confidential and not disclosable. [Paras 15-16]

Judicial Integrity and Public Trust - Confidential Inquiries – Referred to Supreme Court judgments in Additional District and Sessions Judge, X. v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and C. Ravi Chandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee & Ors., which emphasize keeping in-house judicial inquiries confidential to protect judicial integrity – Such proceedings are sensitive and should remain inaccessible to the public. [Para 15]

Contempt of Court - Misuse of RTI Act – The respondent No. 2, a chronic complainant, sought information for ulterior motives – Held, misuse of RTI provisions to procure information for harassment or scandalizing the judiciary is prohibited – Court emphasized protecting the judiciary's functioning from mischievous litigants. [Paras 1, 10]

Decision: Petition allowed – State Information Commission's order dated April 7, 2015, directing inspection of records and provision of information set aside – Confidentiality of in-house judicial probes upheld – RTI application dismissed on grounds of misuse and lack of public interest. [Paras 16-17]

Constitutional Law - Jurisdiction of Tribunal - Determination of Age - Judicial Review – The petitioner challenged the order of the College Tribunal which established the date of birth of Bachan Singh as 1943 instead of 1935 as recorded in the service records. The court held that the College Tribunal, established under the 1974 Act, did not have the jurisdiction to determine the date of birth of employees. The ribunal’s jurisdiction was limited to entertaining appeals against orders of dismissal or removal. The impugned order of the Tribunal was quashed as it was without jurisdiction and against the provisions of the 1974 Act. [Paras 1-12]​​

**Principle of Estoppel - Held, an employee who has represented a particular date of birth at the time of joining service cannot claim a different date of birth after retirement. The principle of estoppel applies, preventing the employee from altering the date of birth post superannuation. [Para 8]​​

**Jurisdiction of Tribunal - Determination of Date of Birth - Held, the College Tribunal under the 1974 Act had no power to determine the date of birth of employees. Such matters should be established through a civil suit before a competent civil court. [Paras 9-11]​​

Decision - Petition Allowed - The petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated 02.06.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, State Colleges Tribunal, Punjab was quashed. The court directed that the retirement of Bachan Singh on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the service book as 07.09.1935 was valid and legal. [Para 12]​​

Constitutional Law - Requirement for Hard Copy Submission Post Online Application – Petitioner contended that submitting hard copies after an nline application is irrational – Last date for receipt of hard copies was 06.04.2016; petitioner sent documents on 15.03.2016 but they did not reach the office – Court held that requiring hard copies along with certificates is not illegal even if online applications are allowed – Petitioner’s argument that online submission should suffice found attractive but not legally tenable. [Paras 1-4]

Administrative Law - Compliance with Advertisement Terms – Petitioner did not challenge the hard copy submission requirement when the dvertisement appeared and attempted compliance by sending documents via ordinary post – Court upheld the advertisement clause stating non-responsibility for postal delays – Petition dismissed as non-compliance with explicit advertisement terms cannot be excused. [Paras 4-5]

Judicial Discretion - Administrative Efficiency and Legal Compliance – Court noted that requiring hard copies ensures completeness and verification of documents, a practical necessity for the selecting body – Encouraged consideration of modern practices like self-certification and solely online submissions to reduce paper wastage and administrative burden. [Paras 6-7]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Requirement for hard copy submission upheld as legal and rational – Registry directed to send a copy of the order to Haryana Staff Selection Commission for consideration of suggestions on improving application processes. [Paras 7-8]

Family Law - Hindu Marriage Act - Validity of Marriage – Marriage during the subsistence of the first wife is void – Second wife not entitled to maintenance – However, child born from such a void marriage is legitimate and entitled to inherit the self-acquired property of the deceased father. [Paras 12-13, 20]

Family Law - Legitimacy and Inheritance – Children born out of a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage are legitimate and entitled to inherit the self-acquired properties of the deceased parent – They cannot claim ancestral coparcenary property but have rights over the self-acquired properties. [Paras 13, 20]

Evidentiary Standards - Proof of Marriage and Birth – Cohabitation and birth certificates can prove the legitimacy of a child – Lack of documentary evidence for the marriage ceremony can nullify the marital status but not the legitimacy of the child born out of such a union – Presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act upheld. [Paras 11, 12, 16]

Judicial Principles - Legitimacy and Rights of Children from Void Marriages – Supreme Court and various High Courts' decisions affirm that children born from void marriages are legitimate and have inheritance rights in self-acquired properties of parents – Protection of children's rights to prevent them from being bastardized. [Paras 13, 16, 17]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court's judgments upheld – Second wife not entitled to maintenance – Child born out of the void marriage entitled to maintenance and inheritance in self-acquired properties of the deceased. [Paras 21]

Civil Procedure - Striking Off Defense - Extension of Time for Filing Written Statement – Petitioner's defense was struck off for failure to file the written statement within the statutory period of 90 days – Held, the power to extend the time beyond 30 days is not automatic and must be exercised with caution and adequate reasons – Extension beyond 90 days should be granted only in exceptional cases with clear justification – The impugned order was set aside, granting the petitioner an effective opportunity to file the written statement, subject to costs. [Paras 1-3, 6, 13, 15]

Judicial Principles - Procedural Compliance vs. Substantive Justice – Procedural rules are directory and not mandatory; court retains discretion to extend deadlines in exceptional cases – Striking off defense should be a last resort – Courts should balance procedural compliance with ensuring substantive justice. [Paras 10-13]

Supreme Court Precedents - Extension of Time for Filing Written Statement – Reference to Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India and Kailash v. Nanhku highlighting that the extension of time beyond 90 days for filing a written statement can be allowed for exceptional reasons – Emphasized that routine extensions should be avoided to respect the legislative intent of expediting trials. [Paras 6, 11]

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 15.03.2017 set aside – Petitioner granted one effective opportunity to file the written statement within a specified time frame, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000 to the opposite party. [Para 15]