Land Acquisition - Re-determination of Compensation - Requirement of Certified Copy of Award - Civil Writ Petition against rejection of application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Petitioner's application dismissed solely for not attaching certified copy of award - High Court finds no legal mandate requiring attachment of certified copy for re-determination of compensation - Held, the Land Acquisition Collector erred in law - Application to be reconsidered without such requirement.

Writ Petition Allowed. [Paras 1-12]

Requirement of Certified Copy - Legal Interpretation - Analysis - Held - From plain reading of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, there is no stipulation for attaching a certified copy of the award for re-determination of compensation - The entire acquisition record already with the Land Acquisition Collector makes such a requirement redundant - No substantial reasoning provided for considering the application time-barred - Submission of being time-barred rejected as it was not a ground in the original impugned order. [Para 7-9]

Decision - Quashing of Impugned Order - Court quashes the impugned order of the Land Acquisition Collector, directing a fresh decision on the application filed under Section 28-A of the Act within six months, with costs awarded to the petitioner. [Para 11-12]

Contract Law - Enforcement of Employment Terms – Regular Second Appeal against the dismissal of suit for recovery of damages and salary – Appellant, employed as Program Instructor, claimed unpaid salary and damages after the closure of the center – Agreement lacked explicit clause for salary payment by the respondent – Civil suit dismissed for absence of enforceable contractual obligation – Held that terms of contract must be explicit and cannot be presumed.

Recovery of Salary and Damages - Contractual Obligations – Analysis – Held – The court emphasized that no presumptions can be made beyond the written terms of a contract. The appellant failed to prove that the respondent was contractually obligated to pay her salary after the closure of the center. The suit was dismissed based on the clear terms of the contract. [Para 8-9]

Decision – Dismissal of Second Appeal – The court dismissed the second appeal, reinforcing the principle that contractual obligations must be explicitly stated and proven. The absence of any salary payment clause in the agreement led to the dismissal of the appellant’s claims. [Para 10]

Service Law – Pay Parity – Educational Qualification – Writ petition challenging different pay scales for graduate and non-graduate clerks – Petitioner, a non-graduate clerk, sought higher pay scale granted to graduate clerks – Held, educational qualification constitutes a valid basis for different pay scales – Classification between graduate and non-graduate clerks does not violate Articles 14 and 16 – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-10]

Legal Precedents – Higher Qualification Justifies Higher Pay – Held – Division Bench judgment upheld classification based on educational qualifications – Graduate clerks likely to discharge duties more efficiently than non-graduates – Higher pay scale recommended for graduate clerks by Shetty Commission – Non-graduates not entitled to same pay scale. [Para 5]

Burden of Proof – Onus on Claimant – Held – Heavy onus on claimant to show identical duties and responsibilities for pay parity – Petitioner failed to provide evidence that duties and recruitment rules of non-graduate clerks in subordinate courts were same as those in the High Court – Different governing rules for High Court and subordinate court clerks. [Para 8]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – No merit in claim for pay parity with non-graduate clerks in High Court – Petition dismissed as lacking merit. [Para 10]

Service Law – Selection Process – Compliance with Rules – Writ petition challenging annulment of appointment due to procedural violations – Appointment as Salesman annulled for not issuing notice to Assistant Registrar’s nominee – Held, selection made without issuing notice to Assistant Registrar’s nominee in violation of Rule 80 of 1963 Rules – Selection and appointment void for not complying with Rule 5 of 1997 Rules – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-10]

Method of Recruitment – Rule 5 of 1997 Rules – Held – Appointment to be made by Managing Committee on recommendation of Selection Committee comprising President, two Committee members, and Assistant Registrar or nominee – Procedure under Rule 80 of 1963 Rules mandates 7 days' notice for meetings – No notice to Assistant Registrar’s nominee renders selection invalid. [Para 8]

Judicial Reasoning – Procedural Compliance – Held – Failure to issue notice as required under Rule 80 vitiates selection process – Petitioner's appointment never approved as per Rule 5, thus void – Non-compliance with mandatory rules results in annulment of appointment – No ground for interference. [Para 9-10]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Writ petition dismissed due to procedural violations in the selection process – Annulment of appointment upheld – No merit in petition. [Para 11]

Land Law – Encroachment – Demarcation Reports – Writ petition against orders under Section 7 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act – Petitioner's appeal dismissed without considering demarcation reports showing no encroachment – Held, authorities failed to consider demarcation reports revealing no encroachment on Panchayat land – Impugned orders set aside – Case remanded for fresh valid demarcation and a speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing. [Paras 1-6]

Procedural Fairness – Consideration of Evidence – Held – Authorities must consider all relevant evidence, including demarcation reports – Absence of findings on whether construction was on purchased land or Panchayat land vitiates impugned orders – Orders unsustainable without consideration of key evidence. [Para 5]

Decision – Orders Set Aside – Writ petition allowed – Impugned orders set aside – Case remanded to original authority for fresh demarcation and decision – Direction for completion within six months from receipt of court order – Speaking order to be passed after proper hearing and evidence presentation. [Para 6]

Service Law – Increase in Punishment – Show-Cause Notice – Writ petition challenging enhancement of punishment by the Appellate Authority – Petitioner, a Veterinary Livestock Development Assistant, punished for absenteeism – Appellate Authority increased punishment without serving show-cause notice – Held, as per Rule 11, Appellate Authority must issue show-cause notice before enhancing penalty – Mandatory statutory requirement overlooked – Impugned order set aside, matter remitted for fresh decision. [Paras 1-7]

Mandatory Provisions – Rule 11 of Haryana Civil Services Rules – Held – Proviso to Rule 11 mandates issuing show-cause notice before increasing punishment – Mere appearance before Appellate Authority does not waive this requirement – Impugned order increasing penalty without show-cause notice unsustainable. [Para 6]

Decision – Order Set Aside – Writ petition allowed – Impugned order of enhanced punishment quashed – Appellate Authority directed to reconsider appeal after issuing show-cause notice and providing opportunity to petitioner – Fresh order to be passed within four months. [Para 7]

Criminal Law - Conviction - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Admissibility of Confession

Conviction of Main Accused - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence – Criminal appeal against conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC – Held: The trial court rightly convicted Simarjit Singh @ Tinku for the murder of his wife based on circumstantial evidence, including his confession and recovery of the dead body. [Paras 25-27]

Role of Co-Accused - Insufficient Evidence for Murder – Analysis – Held: No material evidence against Sonu Masih regarding his involvement in the murder. His conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is set aside, but his conviction under Section 201 IPC is upheld for aiding in the disposal of the dead body. [Paras 28-34]

Admissibility of Confession - Police Custody – Consideration – Held: Confession made to a police officer is inadmissible unless it leads to the discovery of a fact. Only the portion of the statement leading to the recovery of the spade (used for burying the body) is admissible against Sonu Masih. [Paras 29-31]

Decision: The appeal by Simarjit Singh @ Tinku is dismissed, upholding his conviction and sentence. The appeal by Sonu Masih is partly allowed; his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is set aside, but his conviction under Section 201 IPC is maintained. [Paras 35-37]

Presumption of Truth in Revenue Records – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Writ petition challenging the appellate authority's decision that overturned the Collector's order declaring the petitioner and proforma respondents as owners of disputed land – The appellate authority found no evidence to substantiate the claim of possession prior to 26.01.1950 – Presumption of truth attached to revenue records upheld – Petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence to rebut the presumption despite multiple opportunities – Held, no illegality or perversity in the appellate authority's order – Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 1-6]

Role of Revenue Records in Establishing Ownership – Analysis – The Court emphasized the importance of revenue records in establishing ownership and possession – The petitioner's inability to produce documents to counter the revenue records led to the dismissal of the petition – Revenue records showed the land was mutated in favor of the Gram Panchayat in 1955 and remained so. [Para 6]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – The High Court dismissed the writ petition due to the lack of documentary evidence rebutting the presumption of truth attached to the revenue records – The appellate authority's decision was upheld as it was found to be neither illegal nor perverse. [Para 6]

Fiscal Legislation – Constitutional Validity – Sabka Vishwas Scheme – Writ petition challenging Sections 124(2) and 130(2) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 as ultra vires and unconstitutional – Provisions precluding refund of excess deposits under the scheme – Scheme aimed at reducing legacy litigation and encouraging voluntary disclosure of evaded taxes – Held, provisions do not violate Article 14 and are aligned with legislative intent to settle disputes without creating new liabilities – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-17]

Legislative Objective – Settlement of Legacy Disputes – Held – Sabka Vishwas Scheme aimed at liquidating legacy disputes by encouraging voluntary disclosure and reducing litigation – Scheme precludes refund of excess amounts to ensure finality and simplicity – Optional nature of scheme provides no compulsion for taxpayers to opt in – Provisions aligned with legislative intent and not discriminatory. [Para 16]

Judicial Reasoning – Equality in Fiscal Legislation – Held – Fiscal statutes allow for broad classification based on pragmatic and economic considerations – Provisions ensuring no refund of excess deposits do not create hostile discrimination – Legislative intent to end disputes without generating liabilities justified – Optional participation ensures no violation of Article 14. [Para 14-15]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Constitutional challenge to Sections 124(2) and 130(2) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 dismissed – Provisions upheld as valid and consistent with legislative objectives – No merit in the petition. [Para 17]