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].

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 - Recall of Witness - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 311 - Petitioner-accused sought to recall his own evidence as DW1 to mark documents after a previous application under Section 91 CrPC to summon the same records was dismissed on merits - Trial Court rejected the plea observing that it was a belated attempt to fill lacunae and prolong proceedings - High Court affirmed the order holding that power under Section 311 CrPC cannot be used to supplement a case after trial evidence is concluded - Held - No perversity in impugned order - Petitions dismissed - [Paras 8-12].

Criminal Law - Discretionary Power - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 311 - Scope of recall - Mere existence of power does not confer absolute right upon a party to have a witness recalled - Court must be satisfied that proposed evidence is essential for just decision and application is bona fide - Held - Discretion must be exercised judiciously - [Paras 8-12].

Criminal Law - Trial Procedure - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138 - Accused failed to elicit relevant material during cross-examination of complainant and subsequently sought to fill gaps after stage of arguments reached - Held - Allowing recall in such circumstances would permit a litigant to unfairly supplement evidence - [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Criminal petitions dismissed – The order of the Second Special Magistrate dated 22.05.2023 is confirmed – Trial Court directed to proceed with the adjudication of the complaint on merits.

Civil Law - Review Jurisdiction - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 47 Rule 1 - Petitioner sought review of judgment dismissing writ petition challenging consolidation authorities orders - Petitioner contended court failed to consider legal position regarding consolidation authorities power to determine Sikim tenancy and specific grounds raised in writ petition - Court held review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to substitute a view or re-argue grounds that were already addressed or forgone - Held - No error apparent on the face of the record - review application dismissed - [Paras 1-16].

Civil Law - Scope of Review - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 114 - Concurrent findings - Consolidation authorities exercised power like a civil court to decide right title and interest of parties - High Court in writ jurisdiction refused to interfere with concurrent findings of facts - Review petition seeking rehearing of settled facts is impermissible - Held - A wrong decision is not akin to a decision containing error apparent on the face of the record - [Paras 9-15].

Decision: Review petition dismissed – No grounds for review made out as the petitioner essentially sought to re-argue the matter and substitute the view of the Court.

Civil Law - Matrimonial - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13(1)(i-a) - Cruelty - Appellant-wife alleging physical abuse and forced appropriation of 54.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments - Petitioner's testimony in cross-examination contradicted her own pleadings regarding the circumstances of the alleged appropriation and physical assault - Family Court dismissed petitions due to lack of evidence - High Court upheld dismissal noting that fundamental allegations were proven false by the appellant's own deposition and absence of police complaints - Held - No grounds for dissolution of marriage - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-16].

Evidence Law - Documentary Evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 45A - Electronic Evidence - Appellant relying on photographs from social media to allege respondent's illicit relationship - Respondent contested photographs as fabricated - No expert evidence or certification provided to verify the authenticity of electronic records - Held - Electronic records inadmissible without proper certification under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act 2000 and Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 - [Paras 12-13].

Civil Law - Matrimonial - Divorce - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Appellant citing prolonged separation as ground for dissolution - High Court held that while separation period is a factor, it must be evaluated alongside the cumulative effect of facts and evidence - Absence of parenting plan for minor child and failure to prove cruelty precluded the court from exercising discretion to grant divorce - Held - Mere separation does not constitute ground for divorce - [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment of the Family Court affirmed – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Cooperative Societies - Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act 1964 - Sections 2 and 3 - Jurisdiction of Deputy Registrar - Appellant contended that power of supersession under Section 34 could not be delegated to Deputy Registrar - Court held that definition of Registrar under Section 2(n) includes any person on whom powers are conferred and G.O.Ms.No.34 specifically confers powers of Registrar upon Deputy Registrars - Plea of lack of jurisdiction rejected - [Paras 14-17].

Civil Law - Appellate Remedy - Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act 1964 - Section 76 - Exhaustion of remedy - Appellant challenged supersession order directly via writ petition - High Court observed that Section 76 provides specific appellate remedy before the tribunal for decisions taken under Section 34 - Held - Writ Court's decision on merits set aside to allow the society to pursue statutory appeal before the tribunal within six weeks - [Paras 21-22].

Civil Law - Natural Justice - Cooperative Societies - Notice to members - Applicants sought to set aside supersession claiming lack of notice to individual members - Court held that statutory requirement is to serve notice to the managing committee members - Finding that managing committee was duly served, application for leave to appeal by individual members dismissed - [Paras 24-25].

Decision: Writ Appeal 340 of 2026 disposed of with liberty to file an appeal before the Tribunal within six weeks; Writ Appeal 621 of 2026 dismissed.

Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order IX Rule 13 - Setting aside ex parte order - Applicant filed for restoration of MJC case alleging junior advocate committed bona fide mistake by noting dates of wrong case in diary due to similarity in parties and dates - Trial Court rejected application doubting veracity of explanation - High Court upon review of evidence specifically finding that an application meant for the present case was erroneously filed in a different concurrent case file with court endorsement proving the confusion - Held - Litigant should not suffer for the bona fide mistake of counsel and sufficient cause for non-appearance was duly established - Impugned order set aside and matter restored - [Paras 1-16].

Civil Law - Practice and Procedure - Sufficient Cause - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order IX Rule 13 - Interpretation of sufficient cause - Court held that the objective of the judicial process is to provide substantial justice and technicalities should not prevent the court from correcting errors - Litigant cannot be punished for the negligence of the lawyer where the error is demonstrably bona fide - [Paras 11-13].

Evidence Law - Documentary Evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 35 - Court records - Record of another case produced showing filing of an application in the wrong case file by the junior counsel - Held - This documentary evidence acts as conclusive proof of the bona fide nature of the confusion regarding the listing of dates - [Paras 9-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 02/09/2024 and the ex parte order dated 29/09/2010 set aside – MJC No. 08/2009 restored to its original number for further proceedings.

Civil Law - Succession - Indian Succession Act 1925 - Section 63 - Execution of Will - Testator executed a holographic Will bequeathing agricultural property to his nephew while making separate financial provisions for his wife - Trial court and first appellate court concurrently found the Will to be genuine based on testimony of three out of four attesting witnesses and expert forensic evidence - High Court held that the propounder successfully discharged the initial burden of proving due execution and dispelled suspicious circumstances - Mere ouster of a natural heir does not invalidate a Will if the testator provides a reasoned justification - Held - Concurrent findings of fact regarding validity of the Will upheld - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-27].

Evidence Law - Attestation and Proof - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 68 - Proof of Will - The respondent examined three out of four attesting witnesses who confirmed the testator was of sound disposing mind and that they signed in his presence - The Court held that non-examination of all attesting witnesses does not invalidate the Will as the law requires only one to be examined - Ocular testimony remained unrebutted by the appellant - Held - Due execution stands legally established - [Paras 7-17].

Civil Law - Suspicious Circumstances - Indian Succession Act 1925 - Section 63 - Burden of proof - Appellant contended that the exclusion of a legally wedded wife in favour of a nephew and the existence of space in the Will constituted suspicious circumstances - Court ruled that since the testator provided specific reasons for the ouster (preserving ancestral property within the paternal lineage and concerns over the wife’s loyalty to her own brothers) and made adequate financial provisions for her, the Will cannot be viewed as suspicious - Held - Will is a legal instrument meant to deviate from natural succession - [Paras 23-25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts confirmed – No substantial question of law arises for interference.

Civil Law - Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VIII Rule 1 - Striking off defence - Petitioner-defendant failed to file written statement within stipulated time due to unforeseen personal exigencies of counsel - Trial Court struck off defence and refused to recall order - High Court set aside orders noting matter was at initial stage with no evidence adduced - Held - Opportunity granted to file written statement subject to payment of costs to ensure substantial justice - [Paras 1-8].

Civil Law - Revision - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Powers of High Court - Scope of interference - Trial court order found overly technical causing prejudice to defendant's right to contest - Non-intentional delay by counsel due to accident of parents - Held - Impugned orders set aside and one opportunity granted to file written statement upon payment of costs to respondent - [Paras 6-9].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned orders dated 16.03.2026 and 11.08.2026 set aside – Petitioner granted one opportunity to file written statement on 22.09.2026 subject to payment of costs of 10,000/- to respondent.