Land Acquisition – Sections 31 & 34 LAA – Non-deposit of compensation and liability for interest – Award dated 21.12.2004 not followed by deposit despite co-sharer dispute – Failure to deposit under Section 31 and absence of Section 12 notice to landowners noted – Held: Interest @ 9% p.a. from award/possession for one year and thereafter @ 15% p.a. is the statutory scheme under Section 34 – Concurrent decree awarding 9% p.a. from 21.12.2004 till 04.08.2009 upheld as plaintiffs did not seek enhancement – Appeal partly allowed only to modify post-decree interest structure [Paras 10–16, 18–20].

Collector’s Duty on Apportionment Dispute – Section 30 Reference and Section 31 Deposit – Co-sharer dispute no defence to retention – Collector must either refer dispute under Section 30 or deposit compensation in Court under Section 31 – Non-compliance fastens interest liability – Contention about prior writ/representations raised beyond pleadings and, even if considered, does not excuse non-deposit [Paras 14–17].

Section 12 Notice – Award Finality and Intimation – No pleading or proof that Section 12(2) notice of award was served on plaintiffs – Factor weighing against the appellant’s case on withholding payment [Para 13].

Rate/Mode of Interest – Modification of Trial Court’s Penal Direction – Trial Court’s stipulation of 18% p.a. if payment not made within two months found excessive – High Court modifies: over and above interest @ 9% p.a. on compensation from 21.12.2004 till 04.08.2009, the appellant shall pay interest @ 6% p.a. on this interest component from 04.08.2009 till realization – Decrees below modified to this extent [Paras 21–24].

Decision – Second appeal disposed of with modification – Interest @ 9% p.a. on compensation from 21.12.2004 (award) till 04.08.2009 (payment) sustained – Additional interest @ 6% p.a. on the accrued interest component from 04.08.2009 till realization substituted in place of 18% penal clause – Appeal partly allowed; rest of the decree affirmed [Paras 20, 22–24].

NDPS – Possession of 1.2 kg Charas – Section 20 NDPS Act – State Appeal Dismissed – Prosecution alleged recovery of 1.2 kg charas from accused at Sarahan bifurcation – Trial Court acquitted citing contradictions in police testimony, doubtful arrest/recovery memos, and absence of independent witnesses – High Court held suspicion cannot substitute proof, prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal upheld; no interference warranted [Paras 24-29].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope under Section 378 Cr.P.C. – Appellate Court may reappreciate evidence but must respect double presumption of innocence – Acquittal can be overturned only if trial court’s view is perverse or wholly unreasonable – Applied principles from Sheo Swarup, Chandrappa, Rajesh Prasad, and H.D. Sundara – Trial court’s view held to be possible and reasonable; hence, not disturbed [Paras 10-14].

Police Witness Testimony – Admissibility – Conviction can rest on testimony of police officers if credible and consistent – Supreme Court precedents (Pramod Kumar, Baldev Singh, Surinder Kumar) relied on – However, in present case contradictions in timing, vehicle movement, and resealing process undermined credibility – Non-association of independent witnesses despite availability was fatal to prosecution [Paras 20-27].

Contradictions in Prosecution Case – Material discrepancies between PW-1, PW-5, and PW-8 regarding departure from police station, handing over of rukka, arrest memo timing, and resealing of property – Lack of station diary entries further weakened prosecution – Such contradictions strike at root of case, rendering prosecution version doubtful [Paras 24-26].

Standard of Proof – Suspicion vs. Proof – Suspicion, however grave, cannot replace legal proof – Court reiterated principles from Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2013) 5 SCC 722 – Prosecution failed to provide clear, cogent, unimpeachable evidence linking accused to recovery – Benefit of doubt rightly extended [Paras 28-29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of accused for offence under Section 20 NDPS Act affirmed – Bail bonds discharged – Respondent to furnish fresh bail bond of ₹50,000/- with one surety within four weeks in terms of Section 481 BNSS, 2023 [Paras 29-30].

Civil Procedure – Order XIV Rule 2(2) CPC – Section 10 CPC – Appeal against refusal to frame preliminary issues and to stay trial – Dismissal of appeal – Disputed factual matrix around family settlement (21.07.1998), relinquishment (05.06.1984), gift deeds (23.12.2004, 20.02.2008, 02.04.2012) and will (16.03.2010) required evidence – Issues did not go to jurisdiction or a statutory bar – Section 10 not attracted as subject-matter and reliefs in prior suit (challenge to 02.04.2012 gift deed) differ from present suit (partition and declaration re will) – Held: No interference with Single Judge – Appeal dismissed [Paras 25-27, 28-29].

Preliminary Issues – Scope under Order XIV Rule 2(2) – Pure questions of law limited to jurisdiction or statutory bar – Mixed questions requiring evidence cannot be tried first – Issues on registration/admissibility and “effect” of family settlement, relinquishment and gift deeds are fact-intensive – Discretion under Rule 2(2) is permissive (“may”), to be exercised judiciously – Finding that evidence is needed is neither arbitrary nor perverse [Paras 25.1-25.4, 25.12, 26.1-26.8].

Family Settlement – Registration Objection – Whether settlement dated 21.07.1998 was compulsorily registrable and its effect – Determination depends on nature, scope, and circumstances of execution – Cannot be resolved without evidence – Even otherwise, issue does not touch court’s jurisdiction nor create a statutory bar so as to qualify as a preliminary issue [Paras 25.9-25.10, 26.5].

Relinquishment and Gift Deeds – Effect on Maintainability – Triable Issues – Interplay between relinquishment (05.06.1984), later written family settlement (21.07.1998), and subsequent gift deeds (23.12.2004, 20.02.2008, 02.04.2012) disputed – Allegations of infirm disposition and internal inconsistencies (existence of 2012 gift despite 2008 gift) necessitate trial – Not fit for preliminary adjudication [Paras 26.6.2-26.6.5].

Pleadings – Alleged Wilful Suppression – Requires Trial – Whether plaintiff’s non-disclosure of earlier instruments amounts to wilful suppression/fraud on court is a question of fact – Needs evidence as per principles in S.J.S. Business Enterprises – Not a preliminary issue [Paras 26.9.1-26.9.4].

Section 10 CPC – Stay of Suit – Identity of Matter Directly and Substantially in Issue – Test is whether earlier decision would operate as res judicata – Prior suit (CS 58565/2016) challenges gift deed dated 02.04.2012; present suit seeks partition and declaration that will dated 16.03.2010 is void, along with injunction – Distinct causes, issues and reliefs – No identity; stay refused [Paras 27.1-27.4].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Impugned order refusing preliminary issues and Section 10 stay upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 28-29].

Public Interest Litigation – Government Resolution establishing Additional Tahsildar office – Sections 4, 7 & 13, Maharashtra Land Revenue Code – Scope of power – GR dated 18.07.2023 created office of Additional Tahsildar at Kasar Shirsi, allocating 63 villages under its jurisdiction – Petitioners contended that such creation amounted to constitution/reconstitution of revenue area under Section 4(4), mandating prior publication and compliance with Section 24 of Bombay General Clauses Act – State contended that action was under Sections 7 and 13, relating to appointment of Revenue Officers, not creation of new revenue area – Held: Establishing Additional Tahsildar office for administrative convenience does not amount to constituting/altering revenue area – Section 4(4) not attracted – State acted within powers under Sections 7 & 13 – Petition dismissed [Paras 18–29, 34–36].

Distinction from Earlier Precedents – Avinash Ramkrishna Kashiwar & Santosh Suresh Patil cases – Not applicable – Those cases concerned creation/reconstitution of revenue areas under Section 4 – Present case involves only establishment of Additional Tahsildar’s office under Section 7/13 – Petitioners’ reliance misplaced [Paras 30–31].

Allegation of Political Motivation – Consideration – Material showed enquiry and recommendation by Sub-Divisional Officer and Collector before issuance of GR – Action based on administrative convenience and increased population – No arbitrariness or mala fides demonstrated – Court will not supplant executive wisdom in administrative matters [Paras 32–36].

Decision – PIL dismissed – Rule discharged – Pending applications also disposed of – Establishment of Additional Tahsildar office at Kasar Shirsi upheld as valid exercise of power under Sections 7 & 13, MLR Code [Paras 37–40].

Criminal Law – Summoning of Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Standard of Proof – Mother of minor victim sought summoning of grandmother and paternal aunts on the ground of alleged suppression and non-reporting of child sexual abuse – Trial Court rejected application noting that no new or compelling evidence had emerged during trial beyond what was already part of the charge-sheet – High Court concurred, holding that child witness’s testimony was vague, inconsistent and lacked corroboration – Held: Section 319 CrPC requires strong prima facie evidence suggesting possible conviction – Mere suspicion or general allegations insufficient [Paras 8-13, 18-19].

POCSO Act – Duty to Report – Section 21 – Knowledge of Crime – Allegations against grandmother and paternal aunts for failing to report child sexual abuse – PW-1 (minor victim) made broad claims about “family knowing” and “suppression” – Court held that such statements lacked specificity and did not establish actual knowledge or intent to suppress – Held: Section 21 not attracted in absence of clear, credible, and independent proof of knowledge or concealment [Paras 15-16].

Misuse of Process – Matrimonial Acrimony – Vindictive Prosecution – High Court found application was not filed in the child’s best interest but was a misuse of criminal law motivated by the mother’s personal disputes with her estranged husband – Held: Attempt to implicate elderly grandmother and aunts using the minor victim’s testimony amounted to arm-twisting and gross abuse of process – Court cautioned against converting child protection laws into tools for vengeance [Paras 9, 14, 19-22].

Costs – Deterrence Against Frivolous Litigation – Trial Court’s imposition of ₹20,000 in costs upheld – Additional ₹10,000 cost imposed by High Court – Held: Costs justified to curb misuse of judicial time and protect individuals from baseless criminal allegations arising out of personal vendetta [Paras 21, 23].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Trial Court order upheld – Additional cost of ₹10,000 imposed – Pending applications also disposed of.

Bail under UAPA – Section 43D(5) – Complete embargo unless accusation prima facie untrue – Court examined whether material showed appellant’s role in conspiracy – Only recovery of one pistol, cartridges and Rs.50,000/- cash – No direct evidence of conspiracy – Held: Material insufficient to sustain continued custody [Paras 9-12].

Criminal Conspiracy – Proof – Requires meeting of minds – Mere recovery without nexus to larger conspiracy not adequate – Prosecution failed to attribute specific role to appellant in alleged terrorist acts or car snatching – Inference of conspiracy cannot rest on “bits here and there” [Paras 12-13].

Article 21 – Long Incarceration – Appellant in custody for over 5 years – Trial delayed – Supreme Court precedents (K.A. Najeeb, Shoma Kanti Sen, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh) applied – Long custody itself valid ground to grant bail notwithstanding Section 43D(5) UAPA – Right to speedy trial paramount [Paras 13-15].

Bail Jurisprudence – Serious allegations alone insufficient – Bail not to be withheld as punishment – Purpose only to secure presence at trial – Constitutional Courts not strictly bound by prohibitory clause if continued incarceration breaches Article 21 [Paras 14-17].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned order dated 31.10.2022 set aside – Bail granted to appellant subject to conditions [Paras 18-19].

Tenancy Law - Eviction Petition – Bona fide Requirement – Section 14(3)(b)(i) Rent Act – Eviction Upheld – Landlord sought eviction to expand business and settle younger son; tenant resisted alleging harassment, sufficient income/pension, and alternate accommodation – Held: Landlord is best judge of his requirement; Court cannot dictate manner of expansion – Bona fide need established – Eviction decree justified [Paras 4, 8, 12, 14].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 24(5) Rent Act – Limited Interference – Following Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78, revisional powers cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction; High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence but only examine legality/propriety of findings – No perversity found – Interference refused [Paras 9-11].

Plea of Alternate Premises – Section 14(3)(a)(i) Rent Act – Non-sustainable – Tenant raised plea that landlord had rented out another shop within 5 years – Held: Not pleaded earlier, no issue framed, and unsupported by evidence – Requirement is with respect to “such a building”; landlord proved need for adjacent shop as most suitable – Tenant failed to show otherwise [Para 13].

Harassment and Pension Income – Irrelevant to Bona fide Requirement – Allegations of harassment by landlord and sufficiency of pension income are immaterial; landlord’s family, including son, will not have pension after his death; bona fide need prevails [Para 14].

Decision – Revision Petition dismissed – Tenant directed to vacate premises by 31st October 2025 – No interference warranted [Para 16].

Anticipatory Bail – Economic Offences – Involvement in Fraudulent Investment Scheme – Bail Denied – The applicant, a partner in a firm accused of running a fraudulent investment scheme, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS – FIR revealed a large-scale conspiracy involving collection of over ₹130 crores from investors through false promises – Court held that the material on record indicated the applicant’s active involvement from inception – Rejected plea that he was falsely implicated – Bail refused to prevent obstruction of investigation and custodial interrogation deemed necessary [Paras 1, 3, 12-14, 24, 27-28].

Statutory Bar – Applicability of GPID Act – Pre-arrest Bail Not Permissible – The offences alleged against the applicant attracted provisions of the GPID Act, which bars the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 17(2) – Court held that powers under Section 482 BNSS (analogous to Section 438 CrPC) are not available where GPID Act applies – Reiterated that special statutes override general provisions when specific exclusion is provided [Para 15].

Nature of Offence – Gravity and Modus Operandi Considered – Court emphasized that economic offences involve deliberate planning and have grave societal impact – Noted the coordinated modus operandi of accused to defraud innocent investors – Held such offences warrant a different approach than ordinary criminal acts, as they pose systemic risks to public confidence and national economy [Paras 13, 24-25].

Custodial Interrogation – Importance in Economic Offences – Custodial interrogation was considered crucial due to the ongoing investigation and the need to uncover concealed financial trails – Court cited precedents that custodial interrogation remains valid ground to deny anticipatory bail, especially in cases involving economic crimes with large financial implications [Paras 10, 18, 22, 27].

Prima Facie Involvement – Investigation Materials Support Accusation – Despite the applicant’s contention that co-accused or other parties were solely responsible, statements of witnesses and investigation materials indicated his direct role – Statement of co-accused Ramanpuri Goswami corroborated the applicant’s participation in the conspiracy – Court refused to treat the applicant as an uninvolved party [Paras 12-14].

Final Decision – Anticipatory Bail Rejected – Offences Grave and Investigation Active – Court concluded that no exceptional circumstances existed to exercise discretionary power under Section 482 BNSS – Anticipatory bail was refused in light of seriousness of offence, statutory restrictions under GPID Act, and the need to preserve integrity of investigation [Paras 24, 27-28].

Family Law - Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant-husband challenged the Family Court's rejection of his divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Alleged cruelty due to wife's medical issues, abusive behavior, and property pressure – Also alleged desertion without cause – Held: Appellant failed to plead or prove specific acts of cruelty or desertion – Family Court rightly found no cause of action and dismissed the divorce suit – High Court upheld findings, holding that general dissatisfaction or quarrels do not constitute cruelty – Appeal dismissed with affirmation of Family Court decree [Paras 2, 5, 9, 18-24].

Cruelty – No Specific Allegations or Dates – No Cogent Evidence Led – Divorce Denied – Appellant failed to specify dates or facts constituting cruelty in his petition or evidence – No corroboration from witnesses or documents – Held: Marital discord or occasional fights do not amount to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) – Burden of proof not discharged – Findings of Family Court upheld [Paras 11-13, 18-20].

Desertion – Lack of Pleading and Evidence – False Allegation – No Case for Divorce – Appellant alleged wife deserted him but gave no date or evidence – Did not file petition under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights – Held: No proof of wilful desertion by respondent – Allegation found baseless – Divorce rightly denied on this ground as well [Para 21].

Mental Cruelty – Mere Marital Discord Not Sufficient – Law Reiterated – Held: Normal wear and tear of married life or occasional verbal fights not adequate to constitute mental cruelty – Court must consider effect of conduct on the aggrieved spouse – Reference made to Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and Dastane v. Dastane – Legal threshold of cruelty not met [Paras 12-13].

Family Court Judgment – No Error in Appreciation of Evidence – Findings Based on Oral and Documentary Record – Held: Trial court rightly observed that there was no cause of action pleaded and no evidence to support cruelty or desertion – No perversity or illegality found – Appellate Court affirms judgment [Paras 5, 19-20, 23-24].

Appellate Review – Interference with Trial Court's Factual Findings Not Justified – Held: Appellate court should not interfere with findings based on oral evidence unless manifestly erroneous – Reference to Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi (2008) 10 SCC 497 – High Court affirms Family Court decree [Para 22].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Merit in Grounds Raised – Family Court's refusal to grant divorce upheld – Appeal dismissed accordingly [Para 24].