Bihar Panchayat Raj Act (6 of 2006) , S.140— Declaring candidate other than returned candidate as elected - Legality - Post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat - Election of returned candidate was set aside on ground that he got maximum votes by way of corrupt practices - However, without there being any allegation of corrupt practice and without adjudicating on aspect of corrupt practice, Election Tribunal rendered finding based on same which was illegal and unjust in eyes of law - That apart, post was reserved for Scheduled Caste Female category but opposite party belonged to tati tatva caste which was not a scheduled caste - Therefore, order declaring opposite party as Mukhiya was invalid.

AIR 2008 PAT 165-Relied onAIROnline 2008 PAT 20-Relied on(Paras172021)

(Para 17 20 21)

Constitution of India , Art.226— Promotion - Claim for - Petitioner filed petition seeking a directions to promote her deceased husband, retrospectively from 11.10.2002 and grant further promotions and monetary benefits on par with his juniors, along with revised pension and arrears - Despite submitting a representation respondents took no action - During hearing, respondents agreed to consider relief if a fresh representation was submitted - Petitioner consented - Directions were issued to petitioner to submit a fresh representation to respondent within two week and respondent was ordered to pass a reasoned order.

(Para 6 7)

Stamp Act (2 of 1899) , S.17— Stamping/attestation of document - Application for - Withholding of - On ground that application was addressed to Executive Magistrate and same was not marked by any Authority of Office of Deputy Commissioner and due to this it could not ascertained as to, to whom same was presented - Work Order had to be stamped in accordance with law and parties to Work Order had no objection in this regard - Therefore, Collector was directed to ensure that Work Order was stamped by Authority, whosoever was competent to do needful - Petitioner was directed to present order passed by Court before Collector within one week.

(Para 7 8)

Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) , S.34, S.38, S.39— Suit for declaration, permanent prohibitory injunction and alternatively for mandatory injunction - Dismissal of - On ground that claim of plaintiff that he had become owner by adverse possession was not maintainable - Plaintiff filed suit in 2013, claiming ownership through adverse possession since 1965 - However, this claim was contradicted by his admission in plaint that possession was permissibly given by deceased in 1965, thereby negating any hostile character required for adverse possession - Plaintiff's alternative claim of having solely financed 1965 joint purchase remains unsupported by evidence - Plaintiff's reliance on a 2015 compromise with defendant was unavailing, as it neither binds other legal heirs nor demonstrates adverse possession - Moreover, defendants' pending partition proceedings further undermined plaintiff's assertions - Order dismissing the suit was proper.

(Para 12 13)

Constitution of India , Art.226— Public Interest Litigation - To stop illegal or irregular felling of trees - Scope of PIL expanded to cover the whole State - State was directed to file a report with regard to action taken to stop the illegal felling of tress - State had formed a Committee which had made large scale delegations of duties and responsibilities but has till date taken little action itself - Committee was directed to inspect and call for report form the concerned Divisional Officer with regard to the felling of trees - Till then it should not permit any felling or lopping off branches unless it poses an imminent danger to life and property.

(Para 9 11 12)