Pre-emption – Tenant’s Right – Municipal Area – Extinguishment of Right – Sale of co-sharer’s land effected after inclusion of village within municipal limits – Held: Right of pre-emption stood extinguished – Suit for pre-emption not maintainable [Paras 8].

Tenancy – Proof – Gair Maurusi Entry – Absence of Rent – Revenue records consistently showed plaintiff in possession as gair maurusi with entry “bila lagan bawaja tameer makaan” – No entry of rent, no lease deed, no pleadings or proof regarding creation of tenancy – Held: Possession simpliciter or gair maurusi entry without rent does not establish tenancy – Tenancy being bilateral relationship cannot be inferred merely from possession [Paras 10.1–10.2, 13].

Pleadings and Evidence – Beyond Pleadings – Plaintiff attempted to improve case during evidence by alleging tenancy under Gram Panchayat at nominal rent – Such plea neither pleaded nor supported by documents – Held: Evidence beyond pleadings cannot be considered – No amount of evidence can substitute absence of pleadings [Paras 10.2].

Earlier Judgments – Binding Effect – Parties Not Same – Earlier civil judgment relied upon by plaintiff did not bind defendants who were not parties thereto – Subsequent suit dismissal did not adjudicate nature of possession – Held: Earlier judgments do not conclusively prove tenancy [Paras 10.3, 13].

Second Appeal – Scope – Section 100 CPC – Findings of Fact – First Appellate Court being final court of facts reversed trial court’s finding on tenancy after detailed re-appreciation of evidence – Findings neither perverse nor illegal – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Interference declined [Paras 13–14].

Possession – Protection – Due Process of Law – Though tenancy not proved, plaintiff found to be in settled possession – Held: Plaintiff cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law [Paras 8, 15].

Contempt Petition – Not Pressed – COCP dismissed as not pressed [Para 16].

Decision: RSA dismissed – Finding affirmed that plaintiff is not proved to be tenant though in possession – Protection against dispossession except by due process upheld – COCP No. 3975 of 2018 disposed of as not pressed.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Interim Compensation – Section 143-A – Trial court directed accused to pay 20% of cheque amount as interim compensation – Accused denied issuance of cheque, denied signature and existence of bank account – Held: Power under Section 143-A is discretionary and can be exercised only upon prima facie satisfaction of ingredients of Section 138 NI Act [Paras 16–18].

Cheque Dishonour – Prima Facie Case – Burden of Proof – Though statutory presumption arises once execution of cheque is admitted – In present case accused specifically denied issuance and signature on cheque – Bank Manager (PW2) testified that cheque account belonged to a third person and not to accused – Defence found prima facie plausible – Interim compensation not warranted at this stage [Paras 22–25].

Evidence – Bank Testimony – Account Not of Accused – PW2, Branch Manager of concerned bank, stated that cheque account was in name of another individual – Supports defence that accused had no account in concerned bank – Serious disputed questions of fact requiring full trial – Grant of interim compensation held imprudent [Paras 23–25].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – While revisional powers are limited – Interference permissible where trial court fails to properly apply statutory parameters under Section 143-A – Impugned order granting interim compensation set aside as not based on correct prima facie evaluation [Paras 20, 25–26].

Criminal Proceedings – Expeditious Trial – Cheque bounce case pending since 2021 – Trial court requested to endeavour to complete trial expeditiously considering pendency and nature of dispute [Para 27].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order dated 26/09/2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari directing payment of interim compensation of 20% of cheque amount quashed and set aside – Trial to proceed on merits expeditiously [Paras 26–28].

Education Law – Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan – Parent Teachers Association – Occupation of School Premises – Plying of Buses – Learned Single Judge permitted Parent Teachers Associations / Parents Welfare Associations to continue occupation of school premises and operate transport facilities – Directions issued without reference to statutory provisions – Appellate Court held that judgment suffered from non-consideration of Article 147 of KVS Education Code governing constitution, powers and functions of PTA – Impugned judgment set aside and matters remanded for fresh consideration [Paras 1, 12–14].

Education Law – Statutory Framework – Article 147 of KVS Education Code – PTA to consist of parents and all teaching staff with Principal as ex officio Chairman – PTA prohibited from collecting or maintaining funds and limited to objectives enumerated in Code – Prima facie finding that petitioner Associations were not constituted in accordance with Article 147 and activities undertaken were beyond statutory scope – However, appellate court refrained from final adjudication on merits [Paras 12–13].

Administrative Law – Exercise of Jurisdiction – Requirement to Consider Statutory Provisions – Single Judge disposed of writ petitions without reference to governing statutory provisions – Held that adjudication ignoring relevant statutory framework is unsustainable – Proper course is remand for reconsideration in accordance with law [Paras 12, 14].

Education – Student Welfare and Transport Facilities – Balancing statutory compliance with student convenience – Court clarified that no opinion expressed on factual or legal contentions – Liberty granted to writ petitioners to seek interim relief before Single Judge – Status quo regarding plying of buses and unboarding of students directed to be maintained for ten days to enable parties to seek appropriate interim orders [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Writ Appeals allowed – Common judgment dated 25.07.2025 set aside – W.P.(C) Nos. 25921 of 2018, 26907 of 2018 and 25995 of 2018 remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration in the light of Article 147 of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Education Code and other relevant statutory provisions – Status quo directed to be maintained for ten days.

Writ Jurisdiction – Locus Standi – Shareholders of Allottee Company – Petitioners claiming inchoate rights based on alleged 50% shareholding sought to challenge actions of KIADB permitting sub-lease – Held: Shareholders have no proprietary right over assets of the company – No enforceable legal right shown – Petitioners not “persons aggrieved” for invoking Article 226 [Paras 9, 15–16].

Public Law Remedy – Private Commercial Dispute – Petitioners’ grievance stemmed from investment and shareholding dispute of 2004 pending before Commercial Court – Attempt to cloak private dispute as public law issue impermissible – Extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to settle personal scores or gain leverage in commercial negotiations [Paras 5, 11, 21, 32].

KIAD Act – Sub-Lease Permission – Sections 34 and 34-B – KIADB granted permission to sub-lease 25 acres pursuant to enquiry ordered by Division Bench – Sub-lease permitted under Clause 11(a) of Lease-cum-Sale Agreement – Petitioners having no statutory role in KIADB’s decision-making cannot assail such permission [Paras 3.3, 6, 13].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Nature of Coordinate Bench Decisions – Earlier Single Bench view on locus diluted by Division Bench – Subsequent Coordinate Bench categorically held petitioners lack locus – Held: Subsequent Bench bound by coordinate Bench judgment unless stayed or set aside – Entertaining petitions would violate settled principles of judicial discipline [Paras 13–14].

Precedent – Ratio Decidendi – Coordinate Bench Authority – Reliance placed on Dr. Shah Faesal v. Union of India – Coordinate Bench decisions binding on Benches of equal strength – Remedy, if any, lies before Division Bench and not by re-agitating identical issues before Single Judge [Paras 14–15].

Writ of Certiorari / Mandamus – Threshold Bar – Absence of Locus – Once petitioners fail on locus, Court cannot examine merits of impugned permission or sub-lease deed – Held: Petitions liable to be rejected at threshold [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Writ Petition Nos. 25744 of 2025 and 25894 of 2025 dismissed – Petitioners held to have no locus standi to challenge permission granted by KIADB or sub-lease executed between respondents – All interim orders vacated.

Review Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Review petition filed seeking review of order dropping contempt proceedings – Held: Review jurisdiction is extremely limited and can be exercised only on discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on face of record, or other sufficient reason – Review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise or for re-argument of issues already decided [Paras 13–15, 17].

Error Apparent on Face of Record – Meaning – Error must be self-evident, glaring, and apparent without elaborate argument – Mere dissatisfaction with reasoning or conclusions of Court does not constitute error apparent – Petitioner failed to demonstrate any such error warranting review [Paras 13–14].

Contempt Proceedings – Compliance with Court Directions – Wilful Disobedience – Earlier contempt petition dismissed after Court found that Opposite Parties had taken bona fide steps to comply with writ directions – Engagement through contractor offered pursuant to Court’s directions – Held: No wilful or deliberate disobedience of Court order established so as to attract contempt jurisdiction [Paras 9–11].

Service Jurisprudence – No Vested Right to Appointment – Direction in writ petition to consider engagement on contractual basis did not confer enforceable right to appointment – MCL having no provision for contractual appointment of Electrician, engagement through contractor could not be said to be non-compliance – Claim based on select list of 1996 held devoid of legal basis [Paras 4, 7–8].

Finality of Litigation – Effect of Supreme Court Order – Any right claimed by petitioner stood extinguished by order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27.01.2011 in SLP(C) No.14784 of 2008 setting aside earlier favourable order – Subsequent attempts to reopen settled issues deprecated – Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to unsettle finality of judicial decisions [Para 16].

Equitable Observation – Opportunity through Contractor – While declining review, Court observed that Opposite Parties may once again extend offer of engagement through third party contractor – Petitioner given liberty to accept or refuse such offer within stipulated time – Such observation not conferring enforceable legal right [Para 18].

Decision: Review Petition disposed of – No ground made out for exercise of review jurisdiction – Order dated 23.02.2024 in CONTC No.3931 of 2023 upheld – No interference warranted.

Criminal Writ - Habeas Corpus – Illegal Arrest – Non-communication of Grounds of Arrest – Violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution – Arrest Memo Defective – Petitioner No.1 arrested and remanded to judicial custody in Case Crime No. 750 of 2025 under Sections 317(2) and 317(4) BNS – Habeas corpus petition filed alleging arrest without disclosure and furnishing of written grounds of arrest – Maintainability of habeas corpus upheld where arrest is in breach of procedure established by law – Held: Habeas corpus is maintainable even when the detenue is in judicial custody, if arrest itself is illegal [Paras 10, 14].

Arrest Memo – Mandatory Disclosure of Grounds of Arrest – Clause 13 of Arrest Memo – Non-compliance – Arrest memo relied upon by the State did not disclose any of the six mandatory particulars under Clause 13 relating to grounds of arrest, material collected, necessity of arrest, and supporting evidence – Mere mention of offence and statutory sections held insufficient – Arrest rendered illegal for non-compliance with statutory and constitutional safeguards [Paras 12–14].

Article 22(1) – Written Grounds of Arrest – Compliance Mandatory – Supreme Court precedents mandate that grounds of arrest must be communicated and furnished in writing to the arrestee – Breach of this requirement vitiates the arrest – Arrest of petitioner No.1 held unconstitutional and void [Paras 10, 14].

Judicial Remand – Duty of Magistrate – Failure to Satisfy Statutory Compliance – Magistrate failed to verify compliance of Sections 47 and 48 BNSS before authorising remand – Non-application of judicial mind at remand stage noted – Remand order dated 27.12.2025 quashed [Paras 14, 18].

Police Accountability – Dereliction of Duty – Disciplinary Action Directed – Non-compliance with arrest memo format issued by Director General of Police, U.P. dated 25.07.2025 held to be serious misconduct – Directions issued that future violations shall entail departmental proceedings and suspension – Copy of order directed to be sent to DGP, U.P. for strict compliance [Paras 15–17].

Relief – Quashing of Arrest and Remand – Release Ordered – Arrest of petitioner No.1 quashed – Remand order set aside – Direction issued to release petitioner No.1 forthwith unless required in any other case – Liberty reserved to the State to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with law [Paras 18–21].

Decision: Habeas corpus writ petition allowed – Arrest and remand declared illegal – Petitioner No.1 directed to be released forthwith – Directions issued for strict enforcement of arrest safeguards.

Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance – Lawful Remuneration vs Illegal Gratification – Appellant Patwari admitted receipt of ₹500/- but contended amount represented legal fees for supply of mutation copies – Prosecution’s own document (Roznamcha Rapat No. 491 dated 01.07.2002) showed lawful fees quantified at ₹480/- prior to alleged trap – Held: Mere receipt of money not sufficient to establish offence in absence of proof of illegal demand [Paras 6–9].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Presumption under Section 20 – Rebuttal – Statutory presumption is rebuttable – Accused successfully rebutted presumption by producing contemporaneous official record prepared prior to trap proceedings – Once probable defence established, burden shifts back to prosecution – Prosecution failed to disprove lawful explanation – Held: Presumption stood rebutted [Paras 14–15].

Evidence Appreciation – Documentary Evidence – Official Records – Roznamcha Rapat proved by prosecution witness carried presumption of correctness – No evidence of fabrication, interpolation or ante-dating – Trial court erred in discarding official record on conjectures – Held: Documentary evidence outweighed recovery evidence [Paras 7–9].

Trap Cases – Recovery and Phenolphthalein Test – Evidentiary Value – Recovery of tainted money and positive phenolphthalein test not conclusive where explanation for receipt is plausible and supported by record – Demand of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Recovery alone cannot sustain conviction [Para 14].

Witness Testimony – Independent Witness – Senior Revenue Officer (Tehsildar) corroborated defence version that amount was towards legal fees – Defence witness (Office Kanungo) proved official rate of fees – Trial court erred in discarding defence evidence without cogent reasons [Paras 10–11].

Sanction for Prosecution – Validity – Sanction order did not reflect due application of mind – Sanctioning authority failed to show consideration of defence material and official records – Held: Defective sanction further weakened prosecution case [Para 17].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Benefit of Doubt – Two Views Possible – Where defence version more probable and supported by documentary evidence, accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Held: Conviction unsustainable [Paras 18–20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – Fine, if any, to be refunded.

Civil Procedure – Temporary Injunction – Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC – Scope of Appellate Interference – Appellate court can interfere only when discretion exercised by trial court is arbitrary, capricious, perverse or contrary to settled principles – If the view taken by trial court is a possible view, appellate court cannot substitute its own view [Paras 66–68, 75].

Contract – Memorandum of Understanding for Development of Immovable Property – MOU not signed by all co-owners – No power of attorney in favour of signatory co-owner – Held: MOU not binding or enforceable against non-signatory owners – No prima facie enforceable right created in favour of builder [Paras 16–17, 26–27, 69].

Stamp Act & Registration Act – Unstamped and Unregistered MOU – Clauses creating ownership rights in immovable property – MOU providing for transfer of 42% ownership in land and superstructure – Held: Document compulsorily registrable and chargeable with stamp duty – Unstamped and unregistered MOU inadmissible in evidence and incapable of conferring legal rights unless defect cured [Paras 18–19, 39–46, 70].

Specific Relief – Suit for Permanent Injunction – Absence of Prayer for Specific Performance or Declaration – Plaintiff seeking to restrain true owners from dealing with property – Held: Suit for injunction simpliciter not maintainable when equally efficacious remedy of specific performance available – Bar under Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act attracted [Paras 47–51, 72].

Possession – Builder Claiming Possession under MOU – Clause showing possession as mere licence for construction – No transfer of possession or interest – Held: Builder not in settled or lawful possession – Injunction cannot be granted against true owners [Paras 19, 52–54, 71].

Arbitration Clause – Effect on Civil Court Jurisdiction – Mere existence of arbitration clause does not bar civil suit – No application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed – Parties waived arbitration – Trial court’s finding on lack of jurisdiction held erroneous but not affecting final outcome [Paras 55–61, 74].

Equitable Relief – Injunction – Discretionary Nature – Plaintiff capable of being compensated by damages – MOU containing penal clauses for monetary compensation – Held: No irreparable injury made out – Balance of convenience not in favour of plaintiffs [Paras 64–65, 75].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Order rejecting ad-interim injunction affirmed – Interim status quo order vacated – Trial court directed to decide suit expeditiously – Observations confined to appeal and not to prejudice trial [Paras 76–79].

Hindu Law – Partition – Finality of Registered Partition – Reopening of Partition – Suit by widow and children of deceased coparcener – Challenge to registered partition deed and settlement deed executed during lifetime of deceased – Held: Partition once effected by free will and acted upon cannot be reopened unless fraud, coercion, misrepresentation or prejudice to minors is strictly pleaded and proved [Paras 30–33, 70–72].

Fraud – Pleading and Proof – Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Allegations of fraud, sham and collusion against registered deeds – Plaintiffs failed to plead material particulars or establish deception, concealment or misrepresentation – Mere use of expressions “fraudulent” or “collusive” insufficient in law – Held: Registered deeds cannot be invalidated on vague allegations [Paras 42–47, 70].

Registered Documents – Presumption of Validity – Partition Deed and Settlement Deed – Documents executed by educated deceased coparcener during his lifetime – Evidence showed conscious execution, free consent and subsequent acting upon deeds including mutation and revenue entries – Held: Strong presumption in favour of validity of registered documents not rebutted by plaintiffs [Paras 51–60, 66–67].

Joint Family Property – Distribution – Cash Allotment in Partition – Deceased coparcener received joint family cash in lieu of land share for business purposes – Inequality of shares by itself not ground to reopen partition – Held: Voluntary arrangement binding on parties and their successors [Paras 52–55, 65].

Minor’s Interest – Reopening of Partition – Protection of Minors – Plaintiffs failed to establish any detriment or prejudice to minor children arising out of partition or settlement – Evidence showed subsequent benefits conferred on minors by defendants – Held: No ground made out to reopen partition on plea of minor’s interest [Paras 48–50, 63, 70].

Revenue Records – Evidentiary Value – Pattadar Passbooks, Adangal, Title Deeds – Statutory presumption under Section 6 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act – Plaintiffs failed to rebut presumption – Held: Revenue records corroborated defendants’ possession and enjoyment pursuant to partition [Paras 66–67].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Findings of Fact – Trial court findings based on oral and documentary evidence – No perversity or misreading of evidence demonstrated – Held: First appellate court should not interfere with well-reasoned factual findings of trial court [Paras 71–73].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 11.06.2019 in O.S. No.12 of 2013 confirmed – Registered partition deed and settlement deed upheld – No order as to costs – All pending applications closed [Paras 74].