Land Laws – Validity of Housing Site Allotment (Patta) – Requirement of Prior Approval – Section 122-C of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act – Petitioner claimed title over land based on a Patta allegedly granted by the Gram Pradhan in 1973/1981 without producing the actual lease deed or Form 49-F – Held: Section 122-C(2), introduced by the 1971 Amendment, mandates prior approval of the Assistant Collector for any allotment of housing sites – This requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional, not directory – The contention that prior approval was introduced only in 1975 via Rule amendment is incorrect as the substantive statutory provision existed since 1971 – Any Patta issued without such approval is void ab initio and unenforceable – Paras [76-78], [86-87], [89(ii)].

Land Laws – Eligibility for Allotment – Order of Preference – Petitioner’s father was an Ex-Army personnel belonging to the General Category – Held: Under Section 122-C(3), preference is given to SC/ST, OBC, and General Category persons living below the poverty line – The Petitioner’s father did not fall within any eligible category for preferential allotment of housing sites – No legal allotment could have been made in his favor – Paras [89(vi)].

Administrative Law – Procedure for Allotment – Adherence to Statutory Mode – Petitioner relied on receipts issued by Gram Pradhan and entries in Parivar Register made by the Pradhan – Held: When a statute prescribes a particular act to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone (Rule in Taylor v. Taylor) – Entries in the Parivar Register can only be made by the Secretary under the relevant Rules, not the Pradhan – Receipts issued without following the procedure of Rules 115-L to 115-O (public announcement, LMC meeting, drawing of lots) hold no evidentiary value – Paras [75], [89(iii)-(v)].

Civil Law – Fraud and Misrepresentation – Suppression of Material Facts – Petitioner concealed details of prior civil suits and the fact that the land was acquired by LDA and compensation paid to recorded tenure holders – Held: Jurisdiction under Article 226 is equitable and discretionary – A litigant who suppresses material facts or approaches the Court with unclean hands plays fraud on the Court – Such petitions are liable to be dismissed at the threshold without considering merits – Suppressio veri, expressio falsi applies – Paras [80-85], [89(vii)].

Property Law – Encroachment vs. Title – Cancellation of Void Documents – Petitioner argued that the Patta was never cancelled – Held: Cancellation presupposes the existence of a validly issued document – Since the alleged Patta was void ab initio due to lack of competence and statutory compliance, it never legally existed – The Petitioner’s status is that of an encroacher on government land acquired by LDA – Paras [87], [89(i)].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - The Court upheld the LDA's actions as lawful, declaring the petitioner an encroacher with no valid title - Paras [89-90].

Service Law – Voluntary Retirement – Withdrawal After Acceptance – Rule 66(5) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1986 – Petitioner, a Medical Officer, sought voluntary retirement effective 4 July 2023, later attempted to withdraw it before acceptance and again after retirement alleging depression – Retirement duly accepted by competent authority – Held: Once resignation/voluntary retirement is accepted and comes into effect, employee ceases to be in service and cannot seek reinstatement – Doctrine of locus poenitentiae applies only before effective retirement date – No procedural illegality found [Paras 5–8, 17–18].

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Mental Disability – Applicability to Voluntary Resignation – Petitioner’s contention that her depression constituted “mental illness” under Section 2(5) of the Act raised for first time in writ petition – No medical certificate or contemporaneous evidence of disability produced – Held: Plea of disability cannot be raised belatedly to nullify valid retirement – Authorities had no obligation to infer mental incapacity absent medical record [Paras 9–11, 17].

Administrative Tribunal – Scope of Judicial Review – Concurrent Findings – Tribunal rightly held that resignation was validly processed – High Court refused to reappreciate factual findings in absence of perversity or illegality [Paras 8, 18].

Disabilities Act – Section 47 and 20 – Non-Applicability – Remedy Before Commissioner – Court held that if petitioner genuinely claimed protection as a disabled person, she ought to have approached the Commissioner under Disabilities Act – Failure to do so confirmed that plea was afterthought following dismissal before Tribunal [Paras 21].

Writ Jurisdiction – No Direction Contrary to Statutory Rules – High Court reiterated that it cannot direct authorities to act in violation of service rules – State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra (1996) 9 SCC 309 applied [Para 19–20].

Precedents Distinguished – Bhagwan Dass v. Punjab State Electricity Board (AIR 2008 SC 990), Kunal Singh v. Union of India (AIR 2003 SC 1623), and Geetaben Ratilal Patel v. District Primary Education Officer (AIR 2013 SC 3092) held inapplicable as those cases involved established disabilities existing during service; petitioner’s claim arose post-retirement [Paras 13–15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No ground to interfere with MAT order – Rule discharged – No costs [Para 22].

Civil Law - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 34 - Setting aside arbitral award - Appellant-contractor was awarded road work of bituminous carpet to be executed between 25.03.1995 and 24.09.1995 - Respondent failed to supply required bitumen from commencement till 01.12.1995 - Sole Arbitrator partly allowed claim granting compensation of Rs. 100000 on expected profit criteria and dismissed remaining claim - Objecting Court dismissed objections under Section 34 - Appellant contended that arbitrator failed to compensate damages post-24.09.1995 - High Court found that appellant led no evidence to substantiate damages after 25.09.1995 - Arbitrator is the sole judge of quality and quantity of evidence - Award did not suffer from patent illegality or error apparent on the face of the record - Scope of interference under Section 34 is strictly circumscribed and Court cannot reappraise evidence or substitute its view - Held - Objecting Court rightly dismissed Section 34 petition - Arbitral award confirmed - Appeal dismissed - [Para refs not available].

Civil Law - Scope of Interference - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Sections 31(3) and 34 - Arbitrator as sole judge of evidence - Court hearing objections cannot act as an appellate court to reappraise material or substitute its own findings - Award can be interfered with only when it suffers from statutory illegality under Section 31(3) or an error apparent on the face of the record - Arbitrator being a technical expert decided the claims based on the record - Held - No perversity or error of law in arbitral award or lower court order - [Para refs not available].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order dismissing Section 34 objections and the arbitral award dated 07.09.2010 affirmed.

Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302 and 328 - Appellant-mother convicted for allegedly poisoning three minor sons - Prosecution alleged motive based on desire to remarry - Trial Court relied on FSL reports and disclosure statement - High Court found gaps in chain of events - Evidence regarding recovery of poisoned food and presence of poison in stomach found contradictory to medical reports - Prosecution failed to prove exclusive possession of the crime scene - Held - Prosecution failed to discharge initial onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction set aside - [Paras 19-35].

Evidence Law - Burden of Proof - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 106 - Presumption of knowledge - Applicability - Prosecution failed to establish foundational facts to link the appellant to the crime - Section 106 cannot be invoked to shift burden to the accused when the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case - Held - Conviction cannot be sustained merely on the absence of explanation by the accused where the prosecution has not discharged its duty to prove the guilt - [Paras 28-31].

Criminal Law - Chain of Circumstances - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Reliability of Prosecution Case - Material contradictions in forensic reports and recovery of incriminating evidence - Absence of evidence linking accused to the purchase or administration of poison - Testimony of witness regarding illicit relationship found uncorroborated by call records or other objective evidence - Held - Failure to connect accused with the crime creates a reasonable doubt necessitating acquittal - [Paras 20-26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.08.2015 set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges and directed to be released immediately if not required in any other case

Criminal Law - Cognizable Offence - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 173(4) and Section 175(3) - Direction for investigation - Magistrate directing registration of FIR against police personnel without considering contemporaneous police records and failing to record reasons for conducting or dispensing with the inquiry - Held - The impugned order suffers from non-application of judicial mind as the power to direct investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS is not a mechanical function but requires the Magistrate to consider the application supported by an affidavit and the police submission - Order set aside - [Paras 6-16, 22-26, 44-48].

Criminal Law - Public Servant - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 175(4) - Safeguards for public servants - Allegations of offence against police personnel arising from the discharge of official duties - Magistrate failed to call for a report from the superior officer or consider the version of the accused public servant as mandated by the new statutory regime - Held - Failure to adhere to the mandatory procedural safeguards provided under Section 175(4) BNSS vitiates the judicial order - [Paras 27-37, 48].

Criminal Law - Judicial Discretion - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 175(3) and Section 175(4) - Duty of Magistrate - Requirement to pass a speaking and reasoned order - Court emphasizes that judicial discretion must be exercised by considering the nexus between the alleged act and official duty especially when prior criminal cases between the parties are documented - Held - Mandatory guidelines issued for all Judicial Officers to ensure compliance with statutory procedure and prevent the abuse of process of law - [Paras 38-43, 46].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned order dated 11.08.2026 is set aside – Matter remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with the statutory mandate of Sections 173 and 175 BNSS and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

Civil Law - Civil Miscellaneous Petition - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 151 - Doctrine of Res Judicata - Petitioner sought modification of interim custody order passed in First Appeal No 2181 of 2026 - Earlier C.M.P. No 597 of 2026 for identical relief was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to approach a competent forum - Petitioner failed to approach the appropriate forum and instead refiled the application in the High Court - Held - Instant petition is not maintainable as it constitutes a second attempt for the same relief already withdrawn by the petitioner - [Paras 21-30].

Civil Law - Time-bound disposal - Powers of Constitutional Courts - Constitutional Courts should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending before lower courts unless exceptional circumstances exist - Following the ratio in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (2024) 6 SCC 267 and Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi versus The State Of Maharashtra 2024 INSC 899 - Held - Request for fixing a specific time frame for disposal of guardianship proceedings rejected - [Paras 28-29].

Civil Law - Guardianship - Guardians and Wards Act 1890 - Section 12 - Interim custody - Petitioner alleged respondent-mother is not participating in trial court proceedings - Held - Non-appearance of a party in a pending proceeding is a matter to be addressed by the court concerned in accordance with law and cannot be adjudicated in a miscellaneous petition under Section 151 CPC - [Paras 25-33].

Decision: Petition dismissed as lacking merit – [Paras 33-34].

Service Law - Disciplinary Inquiry - Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1958 - Section 16 - Allegation of vague charge-sheet and procedural unfairness - Petitioner challenged dismissal order claiming charge-sheet was vague and relevant documents were not supplied - Court held that charge-sheet contained sufficient particulars of financial irregularities and petitioner fully participated in inquiry for two years by cross-examining witnesses - Absence of demonstrated prejudice precludes claim of violation of natural justice - Mere technical irregularity without proof of actual prejudice does not vitiate findings - Held - Inquiry process was fair and in accordance with law - [Paras 8-8.10].

Service Law - Misconduct - Financial Irregularities - Proof of Misconduct - Subsequent deposit of embezzled amount - Petitioner, while working as Manager of Police Cooperative Upabhoka Bhandar, was charged with embezzlement and false entries - Petitioner admitted irregularities in his reply but argued that subsequent deposit of funds absolved him of misconduct - Court held that departmental misconduct and criminal liability operate in different fields - Subsequent restitution of funds does not retrospectively negate the act of embezzlement or breach of trust - Held - Penalty of dismissal justified for serious financial misconduct in disciplined force - [Paras 8.11-8.16, 11-11.4].

Service Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Interference - Article 226 - Writ Court's power - Petitioner sought interference with concurrent findings of disciplinary, appellate, and reviewing authorities - Court held that scope of judicial review is limited to examining the decision-making process rather than re-appreciating evidence - No ground of perversity, lack of evidence, or jurisdictional error made out - Held - Writ petition dismissed as findings of competent authorities sustained - [Paras 8.16, 10-10.3, 14-16].

Criminal Law - Acquittal - Effect on Disciplinary Proceedings - Subsequent acquittal in criminal case - Petitioner argued that acquittal in criminal case renders disciplinary dismissal unsustainable - Court held that departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution involve different standards of proof - Acquittal does not automatically exonerate employee from departmental charges - Held - Findings of disciplinary authority remain valid as they were based on independent evidence and preponderance of probabilities - [Paras 9-9.2, 12-12.1].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Impugned orders of dismissal and recovery affirmed – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Constitutional Validity - Indian Succession Act 1925 - Section 69 - Automatic revocation of will on marriage - Petitioner challenged Section 69 as violative of Article 14 and Article 15 of Constitution of India for being restricted to Christians Parsis and Jews while excluding Hindus Buddhists Sikhs and Jainas - High Court held that legislature had validly created a classification based on intelligible differentia tracing back to the Hindu Wills Act 1870 and the historical practice of polygamy in Hindu society which negated the presumption of changed intent upon marriage - The court further held that differential treatment of communities under personal law does not per se violate Article 14 and that the provision is not arbitrary or discriminatory - Held - Section 69 is constitutionally valid - [Paras 1-49].

Civil Law - Testamentary Succession - Indian Succession Act 1925 - Section 69 and Section 20 - Conflict of provisions - It was contended that Section 69 of Act is in direct conflict with Section 20(1) which mandates that marriage does not acquire interest in spouse's property - Court rejected the contention noting that Section 69 does not create interest in property nor restricts disposal powers but merely provides a rule of construction for devolution of estate in case of intestacy after marriage - Held - No conflict exists between the two sections - [Paras 50-51].

Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Under-inclusion - Doctrine of classification - Challenging legislation on ground of under-inclusion is not readily accepted by courts as legislatures are free to recognize degrees of harm and remedy mischief in stages - The court held that the exclusion of Hindus from Section 69 based on historical legislative choices and social conditions is not palpably arbitrary - Held - Challenge rejected - [Paras 33-36].

Decision: The constitutional validity of Section 69 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is upheld – The reference and connected petitions are disposed of accordingly.

Civil Law - Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 151 - Inherent powers - Trial court permitted defendants to introduce evidence of alleged fraud in a partition suit after remand from Division Bench - Division Bench had restricted the remand specifically to the determination of shares based on findings of issue Nos. 3 and 4 which had attained finality - High Court held that inherent powers under Section 151 cannot be used to circumvent the doctrine of finality or to conduct a de novo trial of issues already adjudicated - Trial court erred in allowing reopening of evidence - Held - Impugned order set aside and trial court directed to proceed with passing a preliminary decree as per remand directions - [Paras 3-33].

Civil Law - Partition Suit - Evidence Act 1872 - Section 136 - Admissibility and Waiver - Defendants sought to challenge a death certificate marked as Exhibit 2 during trial without any objection - High Court ruled that failure to object to the mode of proof or admissibility at the evidence stage prevents a party from subsequently challenging the document as fraudulent to reopen proceedings - Held - Challenge to admitted evidence at a post-remand stage is impermissible - [Paras 28-31].

Civil Law - Res Judicata - Doctrine of Finality - Principles of remand - Where an appellate court remands a matter for a limited purpose - Trial court is bound to strictly comply with the specific directions of the remand order - Trial court cannot entertain applications that effectively seek to reopen issues that were not subject to the remand or were settled in earlier proceedings - Held - Proceedings post-remand must remain within the scope defined by the Appellate Court - [Paras 32-33].

Decision: Impugned order dated October 11, 2023, set aside - Trial Court directed to act in strict compliance with the order passed in F.A.T. 346 of 2019.