Land Allocation Dispute – Denial of Land to Petitioners – Challenged Order of Financial Commissioner Dismissing Petitioner's Claim for Land – No Entitlement to Specific Land Proved – Writ Petition Dismissed. [Para 1-14]

Land Allocation and Ownership – Dispute over 12 Bighas 10 Biswas of Land in Village Kalauli Jattan – Petitioners' Claim for Allocation for House Construction – Dispute Originating from Orders of Financial Commissioner and Director of Rural Development and Panchayats – Various Legal Proceedings Traced Including Writ Petitions and Supreme Court Order – Final Determination that Land Not Reserved for Petitioners, Leading to Dismissal of Writ Petition. [Para 1-14]

Panchayat Land Partition – Partition of Land Between Gram Panchayat Kalauli and Kalauli Jattan Based on Voter Count – Division of Land and Determination of Ownership – Relevant Khasra Numbers Specified for Both Panchayats. [Para 6-7]

Judicial Review – Evaluation of Multiple Orders and Reports Regarding Land Dispute – Consideration of Revenue Records, Committee Reports, and Orders from High Court and Supreme Court – Ultimate Rejection of Petitioners' Claim to Specific Land Parcel in Village Kalauli Jattan. [Para 3-13]

Decision – High Court Upholds Order of Financial Commissioner – Petitioners' Claim to Land in Khasra No. 80 of Village Kalauli Jattan Rejected Based on Evidence and Legal Precedents – Writ Petition Dismissed with No Merit Found. [Para 14]

Anticipatory Bail Plea by ASI in Bribery Case – Petitioner ASI Kulwant Singh, involved in FIR No. 23 dated 09.09.2023 for demanding and accepting a bribe. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. Allegations include demanding Rs. 50,000 and accepting Rs. 20,000 as a bribe from the complainant, Bhuvan Singh. [Paras 1-3]

Interim Bail and Background – Petitioner was granted interim bail on 18.12.2023, continuing till the date of judgment. Case background includes petitioner's previous investigation against the complainant, leading to allegations of demanding a bribe for favor in investigation. [Paras 2, 4-5]

Audio Evidence Against Petitioner – State provided audio recordings establishing petitioner's demand and acceptance of the bribe. The Court listened to these recordings and found prima facie evidence against the petitioner. [Para 5, 7]

Nature of Allegations and Need for Custodial Interrogation – Given the serious allegations and evidence, custodial interrogation deemed necessary. The Court referenced multiple Supreme Court judgments underscoring the gravity of economic offences and the necessity of custodial interrogation in corruption cases. [Paras 9-17]

Delay in Filing Complaint Not Fatal – Despite a three-month gap between bribe demand and complaint filing, the Court found the delay not fatal to the case due to the evidence and the nature of the offence. [Para 8]

Decision – Anticipatory bail denied considering the serious nature of allegations and evidence. The interim bail granted earlier is vacated. [Paras 10, 18-19]

Promotion and Seniority Dispute – Challenge against seniority list by petitioners, who were promoted to Havildar Instructors and then to Platoon Commanders. Dispute arises due to the retrospective effect of promotions not being acknowledged in the seniority list. [Para 2-5, 10]

Administrative Orders and Rectification – Respondent authority's right to rectify promotion orders, necessity of issuing show cause notice and providing a hearing before altering granted benefits. Current promotions maintained until final order. [Para 10-12]

Judicial Direction – Direction to State to issue show cause notice, conduct a hearing, and finalize the seniority list within 6 months, maintaining status quo in promotions until the final decision. [Para 13-14]

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal complaint No.7507 dated 13.06.2016 and subsequent proceedings – Concerns cheque dishonor under Sections 138/141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, related to a real estate transaction [Paras 1, 9].

Dispute Over Payment Amount – Respondent paid ₹23,54,573/- as advance for flat registration – Petitioners issued a cheque of ₹36,76,234/-, which was stopped due to a purported error in the amount – Respondent alleges an agreement to pay ₹36,76,234/- considering market conditions [Paras 2-4, 7].

Payment Details and Legal Notice – Respondent's calculation sheet (Annexure R1), prepared independently, not accepted or signed by petitioners – Petitioners replied to legal notice, clarifying the intended refund amount as ₹23,54,573/- [Paras 4, 7].

Judicial Analysis and Decision – No evidence of petitioners agreeing to pay more than ₹23,54,573/- – Continuing proceedings seen as misuse of legal process – Order for quashing the complaint and all consequential proceedings issued [Paras 6, 9].

Will - Background and Decree Challenge – Regular Second Appeal filed against decrees from Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohali, and Additional District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) – Appeal challenges decrees which favored the respondent-plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction concerning inheritance disputes and validity of a Will. [Paras 1, 8]

Allegation of Forged Will and Inheritance Dispute – Plaintiffs (respondents) allege Hardial Singh’s Will, dated 13.12.1973, favoring defendant-appellants, is forged and void – Hardial Singh allegedly of unsound mind before death, with no Will in revenue record – Plaintiffs claim rightful share in inherited property. [Para 2]

Defendants’ Stance on Validity of Will and Mutation – Defendants (appellants) assert Hardial Singh's Will is valid, sanctioning mutation of inheritance – Claim the Will accepted by revenue officer, and property was ancestral and coparcenary in Hardial Singh's hands. [Para 3]

Trial and Lower Appellate Court Findings – Courts found Will unproven, not supported by credible evidence – Mutation based on said Will deemed illegal – Plaintiffs’ suit decreed, upholding their inheritance claim. [Paras 7, 8, 14-16]

Appellants' Arguments on Court Errors and Legal Principles – Appellants argue misapprehension of law and facts by lower courts, delay in suit filing, and error in dismissing applications for amendment and additional evidence – Cite various legal precedents. [Para 9]

Respondents’ Counter-Arguments on Will’s Genuineness and Limitation – Respondents assert appellants failed to prove Will's genuineness – Argue no limitation issue as plaintiffs were unaware of mutation till 2007, suit filed timely. [Para 10]

Protection of Bona Fide Purchaser Rights – Argument for respondent No.7 as bona fide purchaser, contending rightful protection of his interests by lower appellate court. [Para 11]

Appellate Court's Analysis and Conclusion – Appellate Court finds no substantial legal question raised by appellants – Upholds lower courts' findings on Will's invalidity and plaintiffs' inheritance rights – Dismisses appeal. [Paras 12-24]

Regular Bail – Grant in Case Involving Multiple Offences - Petition under Section 439 of the CrPC for regular bail in a case with multiple IPC sections – FIR for offences including attempt to murder and causing grievous hurt – Bail granted considering undertrial status and non-commencement of trial. [Paras 1, 6]

Factual Background – Assault and Injuries: Incident involving the petitioner and his family assaulting two individuals, causing serious injuries – FIR registered based on severe injuries sustained by the complainants. [Para 2]

Arguments for Bail – Cross-Version and Health of Injured: Petitioner’s counsel argues for bail citing cross-version of events and satisfactory discharge of one of the injured – Emphasizes petitioner’s incarceration since the date of arrest and likely prolonged trial. [Para 3]

Opposition by State – Active Participation in Crime: State counsel opposes bail, highlighting petitioner's active role in the assault and specific injury attributed to him – Stresses established participation in the incident. [Para 4]

Reference to Supreme Court Observations – Undertrial Prisoners - Cites Supreme Court’s remarks on the condition of undertrial prisoners in India – Notes the excessive number of undertrials and the need for sparing use of arrest and detention. [Para 5]

Decision – Bail Granted - Considering the petitioner's prolonged undertrial status, completed investigation, and pending trial commencement, bail is granted – Court orders release on bail without commenting on merits to avoid trial prejudice. [Para 7]

Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Real brothers of the deceased claim compensation - Dependency not established - Entitled to compensation under conventional heads and loss of filial consortium - Appeal allowed. [Para 6-7]

Interest - Compensation to attract interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the entire amount. [Para 8]

Modification of Tribunal's award - Present appeal allowed, and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. [Para 9]

Civil Appeal – Suit for injunction – Plaintiff-respondent Masjid Committee filed suit against defendant-appellants claiming exclusive control and supervision of a Masjid property used for religious purposes – Defendant-appellants disputed ownership and locus standi of the plaintiff-respondent – Trial Court decreed the suit – Lower Appellate Court upheld the decree – Regular second appeal filed by defendant-appellants – Defendant-appellants contended ownership and challenged plaintiff-respondent's locus standi – Locus of plaintiff-respondent upheld based on registered society status and unchallenged registration – Defendant-appellants failed to provide evidence of ownership or management of the Masjid – Appeal dismissed.

Petitioner's Enrollment and Medical Condition – Petitioner enrolled as Sepoy on 10.06.1991, diagnosed with ‘Aortic Regurgitation’ within 6 months of training, and discharged on 22.01.1992 due to being placed in Low Medical Category ‘EEE’ with 60% disability – Condition deemed not attributable to Military Service [Para 2].

Initial and Subsequent Legal Actions – Petitioner's appeal against rejection of disability pension dismissed on 20.11.2006 – Filed OA/1449/2022 before AFT in July 2022 seeking disability pension, contending the condition was attributable to military service [Paras 3-5].

Respondents’ Contention – Opposed grant of disability pension based on Rule 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and absence of medical documents, arguing disability neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service [Para 6].

AFT's Decision and Review – AFT dismissed the OA on grounds of delay and latches, and medical condition being congenital – Review against dismissal also rejected [Paras 7-8].

High Court’s Analysis – Petitioner's approach deemed casual, with no valid justification for the delays in legal action – Training period too short to cause condition, and medical condition not attributable to military service [Paras 13-15].

Reliance on Judicial Precedents – Referenced cases including Baljit Singh, A.V. Damodaran, and Narsingh Yadav to uphold the Medical Board’s opinion that disability was not attributable to military service [Paras 17-21].

Dismissal of Petition – Considering factual matrix and established law, High Court found no grounds to interfere with AFT’s orders – Petition dismissed [Paras 22-24].