Ex Gratia Compensation – Interest on Delayed Payment – Appellant, a victim of the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots, received ex gratia compensation after multiple litigations spanning decades – Appellant sought interest on the delayed payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- – High Court held that although ex gratia compensation traditionally does not attract interest, Constitutional Courts have the authority to grant reasonable interest in cases of significant delay – Given the protracted litigation and delayed compensation, the Court awarded 10% interest per annum from the date of the Rehabilitation Policy (16th January, 2006) until the actual payment on 8th April, 2016 – Emphasized that policies for victim rehabilitation must be implemented in a time-bound manner to remain meaningful [Paras 13-17].

Delay in Government Disbursements – Judicial Remedy – Courts empowered under Article 226 of the Constitution can grant relief in cases where administrative delays cause significant prejudice – Held that failure to implement policies within stipulated timelines warrants judicial intervention to ensure justice for affected parties [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Respondents directed to pay 10% interest per annum on the delayed compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from 16th January, 2006, to 8th April, 2016 – Respondents also ordered to pay Rs. 25,000/- as costs to the appellant within six weeks [Paras 17-18].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 – The petitioner was convicted for issuing a cheque, which was dishonoured for insufficient funds, towards the payment of apple packaging material purchased from the respondent. The trial court and the appellate court both found the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner’s revision plea was dismissed as the court held that the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act, in favor of the holder, was not rebutted by the petitioner [Paras 1-20].

Rebuttal of Presumption – Lack of Defence Evidence – Despite multiple opportunities, the petitioner failed to produce evidence to rebut the statutory presumption. The court reiterated that a cheque issued as security could also be enforceable under Section 138 if the underlying liability was not fulfilled [Paras 21-30].

Limited Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – No Reappreciation of Evidence – The court emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. and refused to reappreciate the evidence already considered by the trial and appellate courts. The revision petition was found devoid of merit and dismissed [Paras 31-40].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial court to serve the sentence imposed by the lower courts.

Land Allotment – Public Purpose vs. Private Development – Gram Panchayat challenged the allotment of 3128 bighas of land to a private company for a solar power project, arguing that the allotment would deprive the village of essential land for public amenities and grazing – Court recognized the need for balancing development with the rights and needs of the local community – Directed the State to exclude at least 10 bighas of land from the allotment to ensure future development and public utility for the village [Paras 89-97].

Gair Mumkin Magra – Land Classification and Allotment – The Court examined the classification of land as 'Gair Mumkin Magra' (unculturable hillock) and clarified that such land is not inherently reserved for public use and can be allotted for projects like solar power, provided it does not contravene other legal restrictions [Paras 71-79].

Panchayat Representation – State's Fiduciary Duty – The Court emphasized that the State has a fiduciary duty to consider the needs and objections of the Gram Panchayat when allotting large tracts of land, particularly for private development – Failure to consider such representations violates the Panchayat's rights and the constitutional mandate under Article 243G [Paras 48-58].

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – State directed to modify the allotment, keeping at least 10 bighas of land out of the allotment to ensure future public needs – The District Collector to elicit a report from the Tehsildar within 15 days to identify the land to be excluded [Paras 89-97].
 

Criminal Law – Bail in Rape Case – Compromise with Victim’s Family – The petitioner sought bail in a case involving the rape of an 11-year-old girl, citing a compromise with the victim's family. The court rejected the bail application, emphasizing that in cases involving minors, any compromise lacks legal validity. The State has a duty to prosecute such offenses rigorously, irrespective of any private settlements. The court held that minors are vulnerable and their families might be influenced by financial incentives, making such compromises inadmissible in law. The court also noted that the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. confirmed the incident, making the petitioner's request for bail untenable [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Bail application dismissed. The court directed that the trial court should endeavor to record the statements of the victim and her parents at the earliest opportunity [Para 9].
 

Recovery of Earnest Money – Competence of SPA to Depose – The appellant’s suit for recovery of Rs. 12,00,000/- along with interest was dismissed by the Trial Court on the grounds that the earnest money was rightly forfeited due to non-payment of the balance consideration – Appellant challenged the judgment arguing the inability of the respondent to produce title documents, which justified the refund of the earnest money – High Court upheld the Trial Court's dismissal, emphasizing that the appellant's Special Power of Attorney (SPA) holder, being merely a witness to the agreement and lacking personal knowledge of the transaction, was incompetent to depose on behalf of the appellant – It was held that only the principal, who has personal knowledge, could have competently testified to prove the facts of the case – The court relied on precedents asserting that the SPA holder can only testify about acts done in his capacity as SPA, not on matters outside his personal knowledge [Paras 18-27].

Adverse Presumption – Non-Appearance of Plaintiff – The High Court observed that the non-appearance of the plaintiff (appellant) to testify led to an adverse presumption against him, as established by precedent – The court reiterated that the plaintiff must stand on his own legs to prove his case and cannot rely on the weakness of the defendant's case [Paras 28-33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The court found no merit in the appeal, affirming the Trial Court’s judgment and holding that the appellant’s father, who was the SPA holder, could not validly act as a witness for the plaintiff’s case due to lack of personal knowledge [Paras 36-37].

Property Law – Interpretation of Will – Declaration of Title – Plaintiff (appellant) claimed exclusive rights to the plaint B schedule property based on a will executed by Devarakonda Suramma. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the plaintiff appealed. The court held that the plaintiff, being the male progeny of the fourth defendant (another beneficiary under the will), could not claim rights to the B schedule property, which was intended for the male progeny of the first defendant’s husband, who died issueless. The court emphasized that in cases of declaratory suits, the plaintiff must establish a clear title independently of the defendant’s weaknesses [Paras 1-28].

Life Interest and Vested Remainder – The court found that the will granted life interests to the first defendant’s husband and the fourth defendant, with vested remainder to their respective male progeny. Since the first defendant’s husband died issueless, the plaintiff could not claim the property meant for the first defendant’s male descendants. The court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled only to the property associated with the fourth defendant’s life interest, and not the B schedule property claimed in the suit [Paras 21-26].

Burden of Proof in Declaratory Suits – The court reiterated that the burden of proof in suits for declaration of title lies squarely on the plaintiff, who must succeed on the strength of his own title, not on the weaknesses of the defendant’s case [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment dismissing the suit. It was held that the appellant/plaintiff was not entitled to the declaration of title or possession of the plaint B schedule property, and the suit was rightly dismissed [Paras 27-28].

Civil Law – Property Law – Mandatory and Permanent Injunction – Common Passage – Plaintiffs sought injunction to prevent the defendant from obstructing a common passage used by multiple property owners – Defendant claimed the passage as private property – Both lower courts found that the defendant failed to prove the passage was private property and upheld the passage as common – Held, the previous judgment, though not inter-parties, had persuasive value in establishing the passage as common – Defendant’s appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 6-9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The findings of the lower courts upheld, affirming that the disputed passage is a common passage, and the defendant had no right to obstruct it.

Criminal Law – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Maintenance – Interim Maintenance to Wife and Minor Son – High Court upheld the Family Court’s order granting interim maintenance of ₹12,000 per month to the wife and ₹8,000 per month to the son – Challenge to the estimation of husband's income at ₹60,000 per month despite his claim of earning ₹10,000 per month – Court found the husband’s declaration of income unsubstantiated and noted suppression of actual income – No modification to the interim maintenance despite the son reaching the age of majority – Father’s responsibility to maintain the son until proper education is secured [Paras 1-8, 10, 13-16].

Evidence Evaluation – Affidavit of Income and Assets – Suppression of Income by Husband – The Court observed inconsistencies in the husband’s affidavit regarding income and expenses – Family Court’s estimation of husband’s income based on a holistic view was found to be reasonable – No substantial evidence provided by the husband to prove his lower income or wife’s independent earnings – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 8-11, 19-22].

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – Held – The petition challenging interim maintenance was dismissed – The Court confirmed the Family Court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of providing financial support to the wife and child, even in the interim stage – The trial court directed to expedite the final maintenance proceedings within three months [Paras 22-23].

NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Prolonged Incarceration: The petitioner was accused of smuggling and possessing 75 kg of poppy husk and was arrested with his co-accused. He had been in custody for 01 year, 09 months, and 20 days, with no other criminal cases against him. The trial had progressed slowly, with only three out of 17 prosecution witnesses examined. In line with precedents, the court considered the prolonged incarceration as grounds for granting bail, emphasizing the importance of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Bail granted with strict conditions [Paras 1-14].

Section 37 of NDPS Act – Non-Compliance – Prolonged Custody: The court noted that despite the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, prolonged custody without significant trial progress warranted the granting of bail, as consistent with previous rulings by the Supreme Court. The petitioner’s lack of prior criminal record and the extended duration of custody were crucial factors in the decision [Paras 6-14].

Decision: Bail granted – Conditions imposed to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure the petitioner’s appearance in court.