Police Protection – Property Rights – Petitioner sought protection against trespass and obstruction by private respondents – Civil court decree granted injunction in petitioner’s favour – Respondents continued interference despite decree – Held: Police bound to ensure protection of lawful possession and prevent breach of peace [Paras 3, 16].

Title and Possession – Purchase Certificate under KLR Act – Petitioner obtained certificate of title through Land Tribunal proceedings – Respondents challenged validity alleging temple ownership – No material to substantiate claim – Devaswom not aggrieved and no valid appeal – Held: Petitioner has valid prima facie title and possession [Paras 8–12].

Civil Court Findings – Binding Nature – Trial court conclusively found that petitioner’s property (Re-survey No.20/1) distinct from temple property (Re-survey No.20/2) – Evidence including admission of respondent supports petitioner’s case – Held: Findings reinforce petitioner’s exclusive possession [Paras 10–11].

Locus Standi – Challenge to Tribunal Order – Appeal filed by Temple Protection Samithi without locus – Devaswom itself did not challenge the order – Held: Challenge to purchase certificate lacks legal basis [Paras 9].

Revenue Records – Evidentiary Value – Entries in settlement register or revenue records do not confer title – Cannot override title obtained through lawful proceedings – Held: Respondents failed to establish any right over property [Para 13].

Devaswom / Government Land – Long Possession with Title – Occupation based on sale deed and purchase certificate cannot be termed unauthorised – Courts should not interfere with such settled possession – Held: Petitioner’s possession lawful unless set aside by competent court [Paras 14–15].

Law and Order – Duty of Police – Interference with established proprietary rights likely to create law and order issues – Police obligated to act when civil rights supported by decree are threatened – Held: Direction for effective police protection justified [Para 16].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Police directed to provide adequate and effective protection to petitioner’s life and property against interference by respondents.

Property Law – Sale Deed – Want of Consideration – Void ab initio – Sale Deeds Null and Dead Letters – Two registered sale deeds executed by plaintiffs in favour of defendant for total consideration of Rs. 1,02,30,000/-, stated to have been paid through eight cheques all dated the respective dates of execution – Cheques were returned to the defendant at his insistence on the ground that mutation was denied by the authorities – Defendant failed to prove subsequent payment of consideration through alternate mode to the plaintiffs/creditors/relatives – Held: Where a sale deed recites that the entire sale consideration has been paid through cheques on the date of execution and the cheques are admittedly returned without encashment, the consideration does not pass in terms of the sale deed; the sale deed is null and void, a nullity and dead letter in the eyes of law – No declaration or cancellation of such void deeds is required to be sought as the same is non-est – Appeal allowed [Paras 69, 70, 80, 86, 89].

Sale – Passing of Title – Condition Precedent – Intention of Parties – Ta Khubzul Badlain – The true test for passing of title is the intention of the parties, to be gathered primarily from the recitals of the sale deed; mere registration is prima facie but not conclusive proof of intention to transfer if payment of consideration is a condition precedent – Where sale deed recites entire consideration paid on the date of execution through cheques but the cheques are returned and defendant fails to prove subsequent payment, neither title nor possession passes to the purchaser, notwithstanding recitals to the contrary – The practice of "Ta Khubzul Badlain" (title passing only on exchange of equivalents) applicable in undivided State of Bihar continues to apply to the State of Jharkhand created out of Bihar by the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 [Paras 72–77, 81, 84].

Maintainability – Suit for Return of Void Sale Deeds – Section 34 Specific Relief Act – A suit for return of original sale deeds, asserting the deeds to be void for want of consideration, does not amount to a suit for declaration of title and is not barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act merely because no prayer for recovery of possession is made – When a document is void ab initio, no decree setting aside the same is required as it is a nullity; accordingly, the plaintiff need not seek cancellation or declaration and the suit for return of the void documents is maintainable [Paras 57, 60, 63, 64, 65].

Court Fees – Suit for Return of Void Documents – Where neither a declaration that the sale deeds are void nor recovery of possession is prayed for and the only relief is return of original sale deeds, ad valorem court fees is not payable and a fixed court fee of Rs. 250/- is sufficient [Para 63].

Decision: First Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 31.05.2023 of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) III, Jamshedpur in O.S. No. 212 of 2016 set aside – Sale deeds bearing No. 705/508 dated 07.02.2014 and No. 2736/2125 dated 17.05.2014 held to be void, null and dead letters for want of consideration – Defendant directed to hand over the original sale deeds to the plaintiffs within three months, failing which plaintiffs are at liberty to recover the same through court process [Paras 88–91].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC – Reversal – Prosecution case based on alleged assault by accused with sticks and hoe – Majority of eye-witnesses turned hostile and did not support prosecution – Medical evidence inconsistent and case papers indicated “accidental injuries” – FIR and subsequent statement doubtful due to absence of medical certification of fitness and inconsistencies in recording – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 19–28].

Evidence – Ocular vs Medical Evidence – Material Contradictions – Eye-witnesses (PW3, PW10, PW11, PW12) denied seeing assault and only found deceased lying in pit – Medical evidence showed simple injuries initially and later multiple injuries with complications including gangrene – Hospital records described injuries as accidental – Held: Serious inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence renders prosecution case unreliable [Paras 6, 7, 19, 27].

FIR and Dying Declaration – Reliability – FIR recorded in hospital without doctor certifying mental fitness – Only thumb impression taken despite alleged consciousness – No dying declaration recorded though deceased survived for several days – Subsequent statement introduced new weapons and injuries – Held: FIR and further statement lack credibility and cannot be safely relied upon [Paras 16, 24, 26].

Witnesses – Interested Witnesses – Lack of Independent Corroboration – Testimony of son, brother, and nephew of deceased not corroborated by independent witnesses – Independent witnesses present at scene turned hostile – Held: In absence of reliable corroboration, interested testimony cannot sustain conviction [Paras 14, 28].

Investigation – Lapses and Doubtful Conduct – Investigating Officer present at scene even before formal complaint – Failure to produce station diary/logbook – No proper recovery of weapons proved as panch witnesses turned hostile – Failure to seize soil or corroborative forensic evidence – Held: Investigation suffered from serious infirmities creating doubt in prosecution case [Paras 23–24].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Weapons – Not Proved – Panch witnesses did not support recovery – Chemical analysis showing blood stains insufficient without proof of recovery and linkage to accused – Held: Discovery evidence alone cannot sustain conviction [Paras 13, 24].

Benefit of Doubt – Criminal Jurisprudence – Where contradictions, unreliable evidence, and investigative lapses exist, accused entitled to acquittal – Held: Trial Court failed to properly appreciate evidence and conviction unsustainable [Paras 7, 28].

Decision: Appeal No. 649 of 2003 allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted – Appeal No. 1484 of 2003 (State for enhancement) dismissed.

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Market Value – Comparable Sales Method – Land admeasuring 105.79 cents in Vallampatla Village, West Godavari District acquired for Yerra Kalava Reservoir Project under urgency provisions dispensing with Section 5-A enquiry – Land Acquisition Officer fixed market value at Rs. 57,000/- per acre – Referral Court enhanced land value to Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre after appreciating oral and documentary evidence including sale deeds and admissions of Referral Officer – Held: Enhancement of land value by Referral Court found reasonable and does not require interference – Claimants' prayer for further enhancement to Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre and State's prayer for reduction both rejected – Compensation for land confirmed at Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre [Paras 22-28].

Compensation – Gardens and Trees – Capitalisation Method – Bamboo Garden and Eucalyptus Garden – Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre for bamboo garden and Rs. 90,000/- per acre for Eucalyptus garden – DFO report valued bamboo garden at Rs. 2,14,000/- per acre – Referral Court enhanced bamboo garden to Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre and Eucalyptus garden to Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre – Argument that compensation cannot be awarded on two counts (for both land and garden) rejected as the initial award itself contemplated compensation on both heads – Enhancement by Referral Court found logical and confirmed [Paras 24-28].

Compensation – Trees – Enhancement – Coconut Trees and Palm Oil Trees – Referral Court enhanced coconut tree compensation from Rs. 1415.83 to Rs. 3,000/- per tree and palm oil tree from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 3,000/- per tree – Evidence of PWs 9 and 10 showed palm oil trees valued at Rs. 6,500/- per tree by AP Transco – Held: Further enhancement warranted – Compensation for coconut trees enhanced from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- per tree and for palm oil trees from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 3,500/- per tree – Compensation for Eucalyptus trees, bore wells and other trees as fixed by Referral Court confirmed – Tree count to be as per Award and not as per claimants' claim [Paras 29-33].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – I.A. No. 1 of 2025 – State/Referral Officer sought to produce six documents at appellate stage including Section 4(1) notification, consent award, letters from Forest and Horticulture Departments and sale statistics – Documents were available with the State during trial – No explanation offered as to why documents not filed before Referral Court despite long pendency since 2005 – Tests of due diligence and necessity both not satisfied – Court not handicapped to decide the matter in absence of proposed additional evidence – I.A. dismissed [Paras 14-21].

Reference Court – Not an Appellate Court – A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award – Referral Court must treat the reference as an original proceeding and determine market value afresh on the basis of material produced before it – Award of Land Acquisition Officer is merely an offer and material used by him cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved [Para 22(iii)].

Decision: I.A. No. 1 of 2025 in LAAS No. 281 of 2018 dismissed – Appeals by Referral Officer/State (LAAS Nos. 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, 290 and 298 of 2018) dismissed – Appeals by claimants (LAAS Nos. 210, 211, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 and 223 of 2018) partly allowed – Compensation for coconut trees enhanced to Rs. 4,000/- per tree and palm oil trees to Rs. 3,500/- per tree – Award and decree of Referral Court in all other respects confirmed – No order as to costs.

Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC – Revision – Dismissed – Petitioner (husband) challenged maintenance of ₹8,300/- per month awarded to wife and daughter, later enhanced to ₹10,000/- each, with 10% increase every two years – Petitioner contended that respondents concealed rental income and that his income was over-assessed after voluntary retirement from CRPF – Held: Impugned order does not warrant interference – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-2, 25-27].

Maintenance – Object and Purpose – Prevention of Vagrancy – Section 125 CrPC is a social justice measure designed to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those unable to support themselves – The test is whether the wife can maintain herself in the manner she was accustomed to in the matrimonial home – Mere survival does not constitute ability to maintain herself – Followed: Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 [Para 9].

Maintenance – Disentitlement – Willful Separation – Petitioner contended that Respondent No.1 willfully refused to reside with him and hence was not entitled to maintenance – Held: Respondent No.1 remained consistent in allegations of cruelty and harassment – Mere possession of matrimonial house does not establish that petitioner did not neglect to maintain respondents – Allegations of cruelty sufficient to satisfy balance of probabilities [Paras 10-13].

Maintenance – Income Assessment – Voluntary Retirement – Husband's Obligation to Earn – Petitioner took voluntary retirement from CRPF in July 2022 at age 47 and claimed meagre agricultural income – Held: Petitioner's income from employment could not be ignored for the period prior to retirement – Voluntary retirement from a stable, well-paying job without securing alternate income is implausible – Husband, being a B.Com graduate and able-bodied man, is obligated to earn and maintain his family even by physical labour if necessary – Assessed income of ₹50,000/- per month held reasonable – Followed: Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314; Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622 [Paras 14-20].

Maintenance – Wife's Income – Rental Income – No Disentitlement – Petitioner alleged that Respondent No.1 was receiving ₹30,000/- monthly in rent and residing at her paternal home while letting out the matrimonial property – Held: No material adduced to substantiate the claim – Respondent No.1 admitted only to receiving ₹2,500/- to ₹3,000/- per month in rent – Property since sold and proceeds used to purchase residence – Rental income insufficient to disentitle respondents from maintenance [Paras 22-23].

Maintenance – Dependent Relatives – Mother's Share – Trial Court erroneously granted a full share to petitioner's partly dependent mother – Mother receiving family pension, holds agricultural land, and has another son sharing responsibility – Held: Only ₹15,000/- per year ought to have been considered for the mother's maintenance – However, even with this correction, the overall maintenance awarded to respondents does not warrant reduction [Para 24].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned order of the Family Court awarding maintenance upheld – Pending applications disposed of.

Property Law – Title vs Adverse Possession – Competing claims – Plaintiff established title through registered sale deed and release deed – Defendants claimed title through agreement of sale and long possession – Held: Agreement of sale does not confer title – Registered title prevails [Paras 20, 24]

Adverse Possession – Essential Requirements – Possession originating under agreement to sell – Held: Such possession is permissive/derivative and not hostile – Cannot ripen into adverse possession without clear repudiation of true owner’s title – No evidence of hostile animus [Paras 22-23, 32-33]

Limitation – Article 65 – Suit for possession based on title – Limitation begins when possession becomes adverse – Held: In absence of proof of adverse possession, limitation under Article 65 not attracted [Paras 25, 34]

Limitation – Articles 58 & 59 – Declaration and cancellation of instruments – Right to sue accrues when cause of action first arises – In case of fraud, limitation begins from date of knowledge – Suit filed upon discovery of fraudulent gift deeds held within limitation [Paras 28, 34]

Registered Documents – Effect – Registration constitutes notice and confers legal sanctity – Title flowing through registered instruments upheld over unregistered agreement-based claims [Paras 24, 30]

Adverse Possession – Burden of Proof – Mere long possession insufficient – Must establish nec vi, nec clam, nec precario and hostile assertion to knowledge of true owner – Earlier litigations only sought protection of possession and negated hostility [Paras 31-32]

Cause of Action – Accrual – Execution of impugned gift deeds and attempted construction in 2010 constituted clear threat to plaintiff’s rights – Suit held within limitation [Paras 26-29, 34]

Concurrent Findings – Trial Court – Declaration of title and cancellation of gift deeds upheld – Suit for adverse possession rightly dismissed [Paras 10, 34-35]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court upheld – Plaintiff entitled to declaration, possession and cancellation of gift deeds – Defendants’ claim of adverse possession rejected.

NDPS Act – Bail – Sections 21 and 25 – Quantity Below Commercial Threshold – Section 37 Not Applicable – Applicant arrested on 28.03.2025 for alleged recovery of 6.08 grams of heroin from speedometer of his motorcycle – Challan filed – 11 out of 19 witnesses examined – Trial not likely to conclude in near future – Multiple prior NDPS cases registered against applicant but no conviction in any – Bail applications earlier dismissed by this Court as withdrawn and by Special Court – Held: Quantity recovered does not fall within commercial quantity and therefore rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted – Registration of multiple prior cases without conviction cannot justify indefinite pre-trial custody – Bail cannot be refused as a matter of punishment – Pre-trial punishment prohibited under law – No useful purpose served by continued custody – Apprehensions regarding tampering and reoffending can be addressed through conditions – Bail granted [Paras 11-17].

Pre-Trial Detention – Prolonged Custody – Pendency of Trial – Applicant in custody since 28.03.2025 – Trial not likely to conclude in near future given pace of recording of evidence – Prior registration of cases without conviction cannot be a ground to keep accused in judicial custody for indefinite period – State made no effort to seek cancellation of bail in any of the other registered cases – Bail application cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount – Subject to conditions of regular attendance, non-tampering with evidence, no inducement or threat to witnesses, and no travel outside India without prior permission of Court – State at liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of violation of conditions [Paras 17-21].

Property Law – Article 300-A – Forcible Dispossession by State – Mandatory Injunction – Right to Compensation – Respondent/plaintiff, title holder of suit land, found that State had constructed National Highway through his land without following due process of law or paying compensation – Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction decreed partly by Trial Court directing defendants to acquire portion of suit land and pay due compensation within two years – First Appellate Court affirmed – Held: No person can be forcibly dispossessed of his property without legal sanction and without following due process of law – State being a welfare State governed by rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution – State produced no document to show consent of respondent for construction of road through his land – Plea of oral consent held unsustainable – Concurrent findings affirmed – Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 13-20].

Delay and Laches – Continuing Cause of Action – State's Plea Rejected – State contended that claim was stale and highly belated and that respondent had orally consented – Held: Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of continuing cause of action – Being the owner of the suit property, plaintiff was well within his right to file a suit for injunction and mandatory injunction at any stage until the right is defeated by perfection of title through adverse possession – State cannot shield itself behind delay and laches when it has utilised land of a citizen without adopting due process of law – There cannot be a limitation to doing justice [Paras 14-19].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Scope of Interference – Concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed by the High Court in second appeal unless the finding is based on inadmissible evidence, is in ignorance of relevant admissible evidence, is based on misreading of evidence, or is perverse – First Appellate Court is the final court of fact – No substantial question of law arises in the present case – No merit in the appeal [Paras 21-26].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit – Concurrent findings of Courts below upheld – State directed to acquire suit land and pay due compensation in accordance with law [Para 26].

Criminal Law – Challenge to Remand Order - Production before Magistrate – Article 22(2) – Accused to be produced within 24 hours excluding travel time – Minor delay of 25 minutes beyond 24 hours explained by circumstances – Held: Not fatal and does not vitiate remand [Paras 8, 9, 10]

Arrest – Computation of 24 Hours – Time to be reckoned from official arrest and not mere apprehension – Arrest panchanama showed arrest at 5:00 p.m. – Production at 5:25 p.m. next day – Held: Delay marginal and justified [Paras 7-8]

Fundamental Rights – Violation of Article 22(2) – Allegation of illegal detention – Held: Exclusion of travel time and administrative circumstances permissible – No violation where delay is properly explained [Paras 9-10]

Remand – Validity – Non-production within exact 24 hours – Held: Slight deviation does not ipso facto invalidate remand if explanation is reasonable and no prejudice caused [Paras 10-11]

Bail vs Technical Grounds – Attempt to secure release on procedural irregularity after rejection of bail – Held: Petition under Section 528 BNSS cannot be used to indirectly secure bail when no substantive illegality shown [Paras 7, 11]

Criminal Law – Serious Offence (Murder for Supari) – Gravity of offence relevant – Technical plea of delay cannot override substantive prosecution case [Paras 3, 5]

Judicial Precedents – Travel time exclusion – Courts consistently hold that time necessary for journey must be excluded in computing 24 hours [Paras 9.3, 9.5, 9.6]

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Remand order upheld – No violation of Article 22(2) – Delay in production held justified – No ground for release of petitioner.