Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 – Resumption of Land – Proof of Grant – Absence of Original Records – Assistant Commissioner proceeded on assumptions without producing grant order or authenticated records – Mere reference to “documents available on record” insufficient – Order of resumption unsustainable [Paras 21–26].

PTCL Act – Burden of Proof – Claimants seeking resumption must conclusively establish that land was granted to a member of SC/ST with conditions against alienation – Confiscatory nature of resumption proceedings – Strict proof required – Deputy Commissioner rightly set aside resumption order in absence of proof [Paras 27–28].

Grant vs. Auction Sale – Darkhast Register – Material produced in appeal indicating that land was sold to original holder in public auction and not granted free or at concessional rate – Land sold in auction does not attract PTCL Act – Proceedings under PTCL Act not maintainable [Paras 18–20, 21–22].

Alienation of Land – Registered Sale Deed of 1951 – Long Possession of Purchasers and their Successors – Delay and Laches – Application for resumption filed after about 46–47 years – Such belated challenge to alienation held not maintainable [Paras 25, 30].

Single Judge’s Order – Error Apparent – Proceeded on assumption that grant in favour of Bovi community member stood proved – Failed to examine absence of original grant records and delay – Order set aside [Paras 16, 28–29].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Order dated 17.11.2004 passed in W.P. No. 7988/2002 (SC/ST) set aside – Appellate order of Deputy Commissioner dated 15.10.2001 restored – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 31–32].

Banking Law - SARFAESI Act – Judicial Review under Articles 226 & 227 – Limited scope of interference – Borrower sought quashing of e-auction proceedings on the ground of arbitrary reduction of reserve price and violation of MSME revival framework – Held: Measures taken by secured creditor strictly in accordance with SARFAESI Act and Rules – No arbitrariness or procedural impropriety warranting interference in writ jurisdiction [Paras 13–14].

MSME – RBI Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation – Obligation of borrower – Petitioner claimed benefit of MSME status belatedly after initiation of SARFAESI measures – Held: MSME borrower must proactively assert its status and seek benefits of the framework at the stage of reply to Section 13(2) notice supported by affidavit – Failure to do so disentitles borrower from invoking framework at later stage [Paras 10–13].

SARFAESI Act – Section 13(2) and 13(3A) – Demand notice and objections – No material placed to show that borrower raised MSME status or sought restructuring in response to demand notice – Admittedly no revival or restructuring proposal submitted at any stage – Held: Bank not obligated to suo motu extend MSME benefits in absence of borrower’s claim [Paras 11–13].

Auction of secured assets – Reduction of reserve price – Validity – Reserve price reduced after failure of earlier auctions – Reduction carried out in accordance with bank guidelines and SARFAESI Rules – Held: Mere reduction of reserve price does not per se establish arbitrariness, particularly after repeated failed auctions [Paras 6, 9, 13].

Equitable jurisdiction – Conduct of borrower – Bank released one secured property enabling borrower to liquidate substantial dues – Significant payments adjusted against outstanding – Considerable time gap between NPA classification and auction proceedings – Held: Bank adopted a fair, measured and restrained approach – Borrower cannot invoke equity to stall lawful recovery proceedings [Paras 4, 13].

Precedent – MSME borrowers and SARFAESI proceedings – Reliance placed on M/s Pro Knits v. Canara Bank and Shri Shri Swamy and Finance Solution v. NKGSB Co-op Bank Ltd. – Held: MSME benefits cannot be claimed as a dilatory tactic after SARFAESI process has substantially progressed [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No interference with SARFAESI measures or e-auction proceedings – Actions of the Bank upheld as lawful and in consonance with statutory framework.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegation of Civil Dispute – Pendency of Civil Suits – Held: Mere availability or pendency of civil remedy does not bar criminal investigation where allegations disclose prima facie cognizable offences [Paras 9–11].

Forgery and Impersonation – Large Scale Property Fraud – Detailed complaint alleging impersonation of landowner, fabrication of sale deeds, gift deeds, GPA, JDA, forged Will and misappropriation of compensation – Allegations not peripheral but central to criminal conspiracy – Investigation cannot be interdicted at threshold [Paras 3–8, 12–13].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Section 528 BNSS, 2023 – Scope and Limitations – Court not to assess truth or otherwise of allegations at investigation stage – Interference permissible only in rare cases where no offence is disclosed – Present case discloses serious cognizable offences warranting full investigation [Paras 10–11, 15].

Civil and Criminal Remedies – Coexistence – Same set of facts may give rise to civil as well as criminal liability – Criminal law not eclipsed merely because civil suits for cancellation of documents are pending – Principle reiterated through Supreme Court precedents [Paras 9–11].

Impersonation Before Public Authorities – Abuse of Judicial and Registration Process – Allegations of forged appearances before Sub-Registrar, fraudulent mutation entries, false court proceedings and Letters of Administration – Matters requiring thorough investigation by police [Paras 12–13].

Reliance on Precedents – Distinguishing Case Law – Judgment relied upon by petitioner held inapplicable on facts – Present case saturated with allegations of fraud, impersonation and forgery unlike mere contractual or civil disputes [Paras 14].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Interim order vacated – Investigation in Crime No.446 of 2025 to proceed in accordance with law – I.A. No.1 of 2026 disposed of [Para 15].

Review – Scope and Maintainability – Non-consideration of Relief Clauses – Review application filed against judgment dated 03.08.2023 on the ground that relief clauses (f) and (h) though noticed were not adjudicated – Held, review is maintainable where material reliefs have escaped consideration resulting in miscarriage of justice – Review jurisdiction can be exercised to correct inadvertent omission of Court [Paras 19–20].

Absorption of Surplus Employees – Interpretation of Rule 3(1) of 2011 Rules – U.P. Absorption of Surplus Employees of Uptron India Ltd. in Government Service Rules, 2011 framed as a rehabilitative and beneficial scheme – Rule 3(1) gives overriding effect over existing service rules to the extent of inconsistency – Government Order dated 20.12.2011 issued under Rule 3(1) governs manner and conditions of absorption [Paras 21–23].

Government Order dated 20.12.2011 – Meaning of “Treating as Working in the Department” – Expression “उस विभाग में कार्यरत मानते हुए समायोजित करने के लिए” cannot be read narrowly – Absorption requires meaningful integration of employees into absorbing department – Beneficial legislation to receive purposive and liberal interpretation [Paras 23–25].

Absorption – Concept and Legal Effect – Upon absorption, employee becomes part and parcel of absorbing department subject to statutory conditions – Absorption distinct from regularisation – Service rendered prior to absorption by way of regular employment and adjustment against sanctioned posts cannot be ignored for pay fixation unless expressly excluded [Paras 25–26].

Pay Fixation and Consequential Service Benefits – Regular service rendered in Uptron India Ltd. and service rendered by way of adjustment in U.P. Civil Secretariat prior to absorption required to be considered for fixation and re-fixation of pay under Government Order dated 20.12.2011 – Reliefs relate to pay protection and consequential service benefits, not automatic grant of pension [Paras 26–27, 30–31].

Pensionary Benefits – Distinction Maintained – Claim for counting past service for pension governed strictly by statutory rules – Judgment clarifies that pensionary benefits, if any, shall be governed by applicable statutory provisions and binding precedents – No automatic conversion of non-pensionable service into pensionable service [Paras 27, 31(iii)].

Discrimination – Articles 14 and 16 – Petitioners alleged discrimination vis-à-vis similarly situated Uptron employees absorbed earlier with protection of last pay drawn – No rational basis shown by State for differential treatment under same policy – Held, absence of intelligible differentia violates Articles 14 and 16 [Paras 28–29].

Distinguishing Precedents Relied Upon by State – Full Bench judgment in Anukul Prakash confined to pensionary benefits – Does not bar consideration of past service for pay fixation – Decisions in Pooran Singh Manral and S.C. Chandra held inapplicable on facts and statutory framework [Paras 27(i)–(iii)].

Decision – Review allowed – Judgment dated 03.08.2023 modified – Directions issued for re-fixation of pay by considering prior regular service and service rendered by adjustment – Consequential service benefits to be extended within three months – No order as to costs [Paras 31–32].

Insurance Law – Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme – Disclosure of Material Terms – Duty of Insurer – Claims under WBCIS repudiated on the ground that adverse weather parameters on 13.05.2012 did not meet prescribed trigger points – Farmers alleged that detailed terms of scheme including wind-speed and rainfall trigger points were never disclosed – Held: Contract of insurance is governed by principle of utmost good faith imposing reciprocal duty of disclosure on insurer and insured – Failure to clearly communicate highly technical trigger points vitiates repudiation of claims [Paras 17–18, 21–24].

Consumer Law – Deficiency of Service – Limited Disclosure through Pamphlet – Effect – Insurance Company contended that scheme was explained and proposal forms contained declaration of understanding – Evidence showed only a one-page pamphlet in Telugu was distributed containing incomplete and incorrect information regarding risk periods – Trigger points not disclosed – Held: Mere declaration in proposal form insufficient when actual disclosure was inadequate and misleading – Deficiency of service established [Paras 22–24].

Crop Insurance – Coverage Period – Excess Rainfall and Wind Speed Parameters – Excess/unseasonal rainfall cover applicable only between 01.01.2012 and 29.02.2012 – Damage alleged on 13.05.2012 not covered under rainfall peril – Wind-speed cover applicable from 01.03.2012 to 31.05.2012 subject to minimum trigger of 35 km/hr – Held: Though claims may not strictly satisfy trigger data, insurer cannot rely on technical exclusion when parameters were not properly disclosed to farmers [Paras 15–17, 21].

Consumer Fora – Relief – Modification by High Court – NCDRC directed refund of premium with interest and compensation of Rs.40,000 per claimant – Held: Farmers entitled to indemnification for insured loss due to non-disclosure by insurer – However, direction for refund of premium unsustainable as risk was undertaken – Compensation reduced to Rs.10,000 per claimant for litigation cost and mental agony – NCDRC order modified accordingly [Paras 24–25].

Judicial Review – Writ Jurisdiction over Consumer Commission Orders – High Court may interfere where relief granted is excessive or contrary to contractual principles while affirming findings on deficiency of service – Partial interference justified – Writ petitions disposed of with modification of relief [Paras 24–25].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed of – Findings of NCDRC on non-disclosure and deficiency of service upheld – Direction to refund premium set aside – Compensation reduced from Rs.40,000 to Rs.10,000 per claimant – No costs – Pending applications closed.

Land Acquisition – Mega Market by APMC – Challenge by Public Charitable Trust – Multiple acquisition notifications relating to two sets of lands (Subject ‘A’ and Subject ‘B’) – Common dismissal of writ petitions by Single Judge upheld – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1, 16, 66].

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 6 Proviso (ii) – Limitation of one year for final notification – Computation of period – Date of publication in Village Chavadi relevant – Period during which acquisition proceedings stayed by Court to be excluded – Final notification within time – No violation of Section 6 in respect of Subject ‘A’ property [Paras 34–37].

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11A – Alleged lapse for non-passing of award within two years – Effect of interim stay orders – Period of stay to be excluded – Draft award and subsequent award not invalid – No lapse of acquisition proceedings [Paras 38–44].

Urgency Clause – Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act – Dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A – Subjective satisfaction of Government – Proposal by APMC, deliberations in departmental and Single Window Committee meetings – Adequate application of mind – No mala fides or non-application of mind established – Invocation of urgency upheld [Paras 45–48].

Urgency Acquisition – Section 17(3A) – Requirement of tender/payment of 80% compensation – Beneficiary APMC deposited substantial amounts with State – Partial disbursement to Trust – Withholding of balance justified due to pending land ceiling proceedings under Section 66 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act – No invalidation of acquisition on ground of non-payment [Paras 49–52].

Possession – Mode of taking possession – Drawing of mahazar/panchnama sufficient – Official Memorandum evidencing taking over of possession and handing over to beneficiary – Interim orders prevented further steps – Possession validly taken – Land vested in State free from encumbrances [Paras 53–54].

RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Earlier finding of lapse set aside by Supreme Court – Post-remand consideration limited – Acquisition not lapsed once award passed and possession taken – Non-payment of full compensation does not result in lapse, only interest payable [Paras 15, 56, 61].

Acceptance of Compensation – Acquiescence – Trust participated in meetings fixing compensation, accepted substantial amounts, executed indemnity bonds, sought enhancement under Section 18 – Subsequent refund after adverse orders does not undo acquiescence – Doctrine of approbate and reprobate applied – Writ challenge not maintainable after acceptance of compensation [Paras 62–65].

Public Purpose – Acquisition of Trust Property – Charitable nature of Trust not a bar to acquisition – Establishment of APMC market yard a valid public purpose – Power of eminent domain upheld [Paras 59–60].

Decision: Writ Appeals dismissed – Order dated 03.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing WP Nos. 3884/1999 and 37140/2000 affirmed – Acquisition proceedings upheld – No costs [Paras 66–67].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Trap Case – Quashing under Section 482 CrPC – Accused added during investigation – Complaint lodged with Lokayuktha on 03.01.2019 alleging demand/acceptance of illegal gratification – Pre-trap mahazar drawn and trap laid on same day – Tainted currency seized from hands of Accused No.1 – Petitioner (PSI) not named in FIR but arraigned as Accused No.3 in charge sheet based on recorded conversation with complainant – Cognizance taken and Spl.C.C. No.217/2023 registered – Petition filed to quash entire proceedings [Paras 1, 3, 8].

Quashment – Demand/acceptance not recovered from petitioner – Defence contentions – Petitioner contended no allegation of demand/acceptance against her, no recovery of tainted currency from her and complainant’s evidence indicates no demand by petitioner – Further urged that departmental enquiry on same facts ended in complete exoneration accepted by Disciplinary Authority – Hence, criminal trial (higher standard of proof) should not be permitted to proceed [Paras 4.1–4.2, 9].

Departmental exoneration – When it can justify quashment – Ashoo Surendranath Tewari line of cases invoked – Court noted reliance placed on Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. DSP, EOW, CBI and principles drawn from P.S. Rajya and Radheshyam Kejriwal that where exoneration is on merits on identical allegations and identical material, continuation of criminal prosecution may amount to abuse of process [Para 9].

Limit on doctrine – Karnataka Lokayukta v. Chandrashekar – Evidence in two proceedings must be identical – Court considered Supreme Court decision in Karnataka Lokayukta, Bagalkote District v. Chandrashekar (2026 SCC OnLine SC 13) holding that departmental exoneration does not automatically nullify criminal prosecution – Key test is whether exoneration is truly on merits and whether evidence/witnesses/material are identical – Where departmental enquiry is limited / key witnesses not examined, quashment is not warranted [Paras 10–11].

Comparative witness analysis – Departmental enquiry not co-extensive with criminal trial – On facts, prosecution proposed 27 witnesses in criminal case; departmental enquiry examined only a few – Court noted several key witnesses cited in charge sheet (including spot sketch reporter, chemical examiner/FSL officials, nodal officers for call records, sanctioning authorities, investigating officers) were not examined in departmental enquiry – Hence, departmental enquiry evidence was not identical to criminal trial evidence and had “travelled only on the periphery” of demand/acceptance [Para 11].

Inherent powers – Refusal to stifle prosecution where prima facie material exists – State pointed to conversations between complainant and petitioner and contextual allegations of periodic bribe demand in relation to sand transport business – Court held such matters are for evaluation in a full-fledged trial – Section 482 jurisdiction not to be exercised to “obliterate” proceedings in these circumstances [Para 12].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Proceedings in Spl.C.C. No.217/2023 to continue – Petitioner to establish innocence at trial [Paras 12–13].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – MMRDA Act, 1974 – Grant of TDR instead of monetary compensation – Illegality – Land of petitioners acquired for Santacruz–Chembur Link Road project – Competent Authority unilaterally awarded compensation in the form of TDR without determining monetary compensation under Section 35 – Statutory scheme under Section 35 mandates determination of “amount” payable – Held: Compensation under the MMRDA Act must be monetary and cannot be substituted by TDR unilaterally – Award dated 15.12.2012 held arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 28–35].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 35, MMRDA Act – Step-wise procedure mandatory – Section 35 provides a complete code for determination of compensation – Requires attempt at agreement under Section 35(2) and, failing that, determination of compensation based on net average monthly income – No provision permitting unilateral grant of TDR – Any deviation from statutory mechanism violates authority of law under Article 300A [Paras 23–29, 34–35].

Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) – Consent of land owner – Requirement of consensus – Even where statute contemplates TDR (as under MRTP Act), grant must be by consensus – Applying Full Bench decision in Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers – Under MMRDA Act, which does not expressly provide for TDR, unilateral imposition of TDR is impermissible – Petitioners on stronger footing [Paras 30–34].

Alternative Remedy – Tribunal under Section 35(6) – Not efficacious – Tribunal’s jurisdiction confined to disputes regarding quantum of monetary compensation based on net average monthly income – Tribunal cannot adjudicate legality of grant of TDR in lieu of monetary compensation – Objection of alternative remedy rejected [Paras 36–37].

Delay and Laches – Continuing violation of Article 300A – Acquisition completed in 2011–2012, writ petition filed in 2024 – Held: Forcible deprivation of property without lawful compensation constitutes continuing wrong – State cannot defeat constitutional right to property on ground of delay – Reliance placed on Sukh Dutt Ratra, Vidya Devi, and Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah [Paras 38–45].

Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Article 300A – Deprivation of property must be by authority of law and accompanied by just, fair and reasonable compensation – Compensation is integral to lawful acquisition – Unilateral grant of TDR amounts to taking possession without authority of law – Violates constitutional and human right to property [Paras 39–44].

Relief – Quashing of Award – Direction to determine monetary compensation – Impugned award dated 15.12.2012 and communication dated 01.04.2024 quashed – Respondents directed to determine monetary compensation strictly in accordance with Section 35(2) to 35(5) of the MMRDA Act – Exercise to be completed within six months – Writ petition allowed [Paras 49–51].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned award and communication set aside – Respondents directed to determine and pay monetary compensation as per Section 35 of the MMRDA Act within six months.

Criminal Law – Transfer of Criminal Case – Scope of Power of Sessions Judge under Section 408 Cr.P.C./Section 448 BNSS – Petition filed seeking transfer of complaint case alleging defamation on grounds of bias of the Presiding Magistrate, advanced age and medical condition of accused, and inconvenience due to distance – Sessions Judge dismissed transfer application holding that mere apprehension is insufficient – High Court examined parameters governing transfer jurisdiction – Held: Power of transfer is discretionary and to be exercised sparingly and only when expedient for the ends of justice – Mere allegations, conjectures or dissatisfaction with trial proceedings do not justify transfer – Apprehension must be reasonable, bona fide and supported by cogent material – No perversity or illegality found in impugned order declining transfer [Paras 6–12, 16].

Fair Trial – Reasonable Apprehension of Bias – Article 21 of Constitution – Right to fair trial is a facet of Article 21 – However, judicial error or adverse orders are not synonymous with judicial bias – Bald allegations against Presiding Officer or opposing counsel without substantiation amount to abuse of process – Courts must guard against forum shopping and erosion of judicial independence – Held: Petitioner failed to establish any credible material giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias or denial of fair trial [Paras 10–14, 16.2].

Transfer Applications – Abuse of Process – Forum Shopping – Increasing tendency of litigants to seek transfer on unfounded allegations deprecated – Transfer jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a tool to browbeat judicial officers or delay proceedings – Courts must respond firmly to frivolous and vexatious transfer pleas – Costs may be imposed to curb misuse of process – Though petitioner was of advanced age, conduct in casting aspersions on Court and counsel was deprecated [Paras 11–14, 16.2].

Delay in Trial – Age and Health of Accused – Pendency of complaint since 2019 and advanced age of accused by themselves do not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting transfer – Delay not solely attributable to trial Court or complainant – Appropriate remedies lie elsewhere under law and not by seeking transfer without adequate grounds [Paras 15–16].

Decision – Petition dismissed – Order of Sessions Judge rejecting transfer application upheld – Costs of ₹50,000 imposed on petitioner, partly payable to Haryana State Legal Services Authority and partly to complainant’s counsel – Directions issued for recovery of costs in case of default – Trial Court directed to proceed expeditiously and uninfluenced by observations made [Paras 17(i)–(iv)].