Local Bodies – Panchayat Jurisdiction – Obstruction of Pathway – Petitioners issued notice by Gram Panchayat to remove obstruction allegedly placed on public pathway – Petitioners claim the pathway lies within their granted land – Dispute also pending in O.S. No. 299/2017 before Civil Court – Held: Since matter involves disputed questions of title and access, and civil suit is pending, parties must maintain status quo [Paras 1–4, 7]

Civil Procedure – Overlapping Jurisdiction – Parallel Proceedings – Pending civil litigation between parties on the same issue of public pathway and property ownership – Court held that administrative directions by Panchayat must await outcome of civil suit – Interim arrangement to remove obstruction only to facilitate access pending adjudication [Paras 4, 7, 9]

Commissioner’s Report – Factual Assessment – Court-appointed Commissioner confirmed presence of obstruction (laterite bricks) on disputed pathway used by respondent and other residents – Court relied on Commissioner’s factual findings to issue interim relief and protect access of residents [Paras 6–7]

Interim Directions – Maintenance of Access – Petitioners directed to remove obstruction on disputed passage pending civil court decision – Failure to comply will authorize Panchayat to remove obstruction and recover costs – Rights and contentions of parties reserved for adjudication in O.S. No. 299/2017 [Paras 9–10]

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Petitioners directed to remove obstructions within one week – Panchayat authorized to act if petitioners default – All issues left open to be decided in pending civil suit [Paras 9–10]

Land Revenue – Mutation Entries – Competing Claims – Dispute over entry of name in revenue records concerning 30 guntas in Sy.No.155/1 – Appellant claimed title through Jayaramaiah based on Inams Abolition grant of 5 acres 4 guntas – Respondent No.5 traced title to Appashetty based on separate Inam grant and mutation in 1962 – Held: Appellant failed to establish grant of full 5 acres 4 guntas – Authorities justified in entering Respondent’s name for 30 guntas [Paras 3–6, 10, 18–20]

Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities – Limitation on Title Adjudication – Contention raised that revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to alter entries amid pending civil suit on title – Held: While revenue officials cannot adjudicate title disputes, they may enter names based on available documents evidencing title – Mutation does not confer title but reflects source – No infirmity found in orders passed [Paras 16–17]

Maintainability of Appeal under Section 136(2) – Objection on maintainability of appeal before Assistant Commissioner due to alleged absence of order under Section 129(4) – Held: Mutation entry reflects an operative decision by Tahsildar – Section 136 appeal lies – Objection not raised before Single Judge or in appeal memo – Rejected [Paras 21–23]

Procedural Grounds – Waiver and Non-pleading – Grounds related to procedural defects and jurisdiction not raised at earlier stages – Court declined to entertain at appellate level – Legal principle affirmed that grounds not urged before learned Single Judge cannot be raised for first time in appeal [Paras 22, 26]

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed – Orders of revenue authorities and Single Judge upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 27–28]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Acquittal in Cheque Bounce Case – Appeal Dismissed – Failure to Prove Legally Enforceable Debt – Presumption under Section 139 Not Attracted –

Cheque Dishonour – Alleged Liability – Appellant-complainant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of cheque for ₹24,00,000 issued by Respondent in lieu of cash payment towards proposed sale of land – Cheque returned with remark “Insufficient Funds” – Legal notice issued and duly received – Respondent failed to pay within statutory period – Trial Court acquitted accused holding that complainant failed to establish existence of legally enforceable debt – Acquittal challenged in appeal [Paras 1, 3–7, 8–9, 22–23]

Issuance and Signature of Cheque – Respondent admitted signature on cheque but denied issuance – Claimed cheque was misplaced along with others from cheque book – No FIR or written complaint made – Cheque allegedly never delivered to Appellant – Trial Court found that admission of signature alone without proof of delivery and debt not sufficient to attract presumption under Section 139 NI Act – High Court concurred [Paras 4, 24, 26, 28, 32]

Burden of Proof – Legally Enforceable Debt – Held: Existence of legally recoverable debt must be proved before presumption under Section 139 arises – Appellant admitted cash transaction but failed to produce any documentary evidence or records showing payment of ₹24,00,000 – No written agreement, receipt, or corroboration from witnesses – PW2 and PW3 (Appellant’s brothers) admitted ignorance about cheque and confirmed separate unrelated transactions – Burden under Section 138 not discharged [Paras 25, 28–29, 32]

Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Not Applicable – Held: Presumption arises only after execution and issuance of cheque is admitted – Mere admission of signature not sufficient – When accused denies issuing cheque and complainant fails to prove foundational facts, presumption not triggered – Appellant failed to show debt or delivery – Respondent successfully rebutted presumption through probable defence [Paras 28, 32–33]

Financial Capacity and Income Tax Returns – Appellant filed returns showing ₹24,00,000 as receivable – However, no proof of actual cash transaction or mode of transfer – No ITR entries or documents specifically linked to the transaction in question – Appellant failed to establish financial capacity at time of alleged payment – Mere ITRs insufficient to prove actual cash handover [Paras 16–18, 32]

Credibility of Evidence – Contradictions – Complainant’s version inconsistent and uncorroborated – Witnesses failed to support case – Absence of contemporaneous records undermined credibility – Trial Court's appreciation of evidence not perverse – Acquittal not interfered with [Paras 25–27, 30–31]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – No Perversity Found – Weight of Evidence Favoured Accused – High Court held that reappreciation of evidence did not reveal any perversity or illegality in Trial Court’s reasoning – Acquittal not contrary to settled law or evidence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 29–33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal by Trial Court under Section 138 of NI Act upheld – No costs imposed.

Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Appeal under Section 16 – Right of Appeal – Maintainability – Whether appeal under Section 16 is maintainable only by senior citizens or parents or also by any aggrieved person – Larger Bench of High Court constituted due to conflicting views among coordinate benches – Held: Appeal under Section 16 is maintainable only at the instance of a senior citizen or a parent – Appeal by any other aggrieved person (such as children or relatives) not maintainable [Paras A-1 to A-24, C-1, C-2]

Welfare Legislation – Beneficial Interpretation – Senior Citizens Act, 2007 enacted to provide effective provisions for maintenance and welfare of senior citizens and parents – Entire scheme, definitions, and procedural framework designed solely for benefit of senior citizens and parents – Object is to provide speedy, summary remedy to senior citizens without exposing them to prolonged litigation – Hence, restrictive interpretation of appellate rights justified [Paras A-2 to A-6, A-17, A-18]

Statutory Interpretation – Section 16(1) – Plain and Clear Language – Section 16(1) restricts right of appeal to “any senior citizen or a parent” – No ambiguity or scope for expansion to include “any aggrieved person” – Legislature consciously excluded children and relatives – Rule-making power under Section 32 does not authorize expansion of appellate rights – Any such inclusion would amount to judicial legislation [Paras A-10 to A-13, A-19, A-20, A-22]

Interpretive Doctrines – Doctrine of Casus Omissus – Inapplicability – No inadvertent omission by legislature in Section 16 – Omission of children or relatives from appellate provision is deliberate and intentional – Courts cannot supply words not found in statute – Reliance on Supreme Court decisions reaffirming that casus omissus cannot be judicially supplied unless omission is evident and defeats statute’s object [Paras P-12 to P-15, A-21]

Proviso to Section 16 – Scope – First proviso requiring continued payment of maintenance by children during appeal does not imply that children can file appeal – It only ensures continuity of support to senior citizen during pendency of appeal filed by them – Cannot be interpreted to extend appellate rights to children or relatives [Para A-13]

Availability of Alternate Remedy – No Violation of Natural Justice – Though appeal is not maintainable at the instance of children or relatives, they are not remediless – Remedy under Article 226 of Constitution always available to challenge Tribunal’s orders on jurisdictional or legal grounds – Hence, exclusion from appellate remedy does not violate principles of natural justice [Para A-24]

Constitutional Provisions – No Violation of Articles 14 or 21 – Restriction of appeal to senior citizens or parents does not offend equality clause under Article 14 – Classification is reasonable, based on intelligible differentia and rational nexus with object of statute – Protection of elderly is a constitutionally recognized goal under Articles 21, 41, 46 [Paras P-1 to P-5, A-6, A-17, A-18]

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction – Rejected in Present Case – Argument that proviso to Section 16 implies children can also appeal rejected – Harmonious construction cannot override clear legislative intent and express statutory language [Para A-13]

Reference to Larger Bench – Justification – Conflicting decisions by coordinate benches of same High Court – Larger Bench constituted to resolve interpretive inconsistency – Held: Previous view in Nitin Jaat (which allowed appeal by children) overruled – View taken in Anil Choupda and Dilip Marmat upheld [Paras F-3, F-13, F-14, C-1, C-2]

Comparative Statutory Schemes – Not Applicable – Reference to other social welfare legislations like Domestic Violence Act, Consumer Protection Act, RERA, etc., where appeal is allowed to both sides, held irrelevant – Senior Citizens Act is unique and designed to grant limited appellate remedy only to the beneficiary class [Paras S-7, S-8, A-16]

Legislative Amendment – Pending Amendment Not Applicable – Reliance placed on proposed 2019 Amendment Bill which seeks to include “children or relatives” in Section 16 – Held: Until amendment is passed, Court cannot read into statute what is consciously omitted – Pending amendment reinforces current exclusion [Paras P-16, A-15, A-21]

Decision: Reference answered in negative – Appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 maintainable only at the instance of senior citizen or a parent – Not maintainable at the instance of any other aggrieved person – Writ petition to be listed before Single Bench for adjudication [Paras C-1, C-2]

Civil Procedure – Execution of Decree – Civil Imprisonment – Order 21 Rule 37 CPC – Judgment-debtor ordered to be detained in civil prison for 3 months for non-payment of decretal amount of ₹7,06,177 – Petitioner argued non-compliance with Section 51 CPC and lack of opportunity to show cause – Held: Sufficient opportunity was provided; petitioner failed to furnish surety or substantiate alleged prior payment – No receipt produced despite Court enquiry – No civil appeal filed – Petitioner’s conduct reflects deliberate evasion of decree compliance – Detention order valid [Paras 1–7]

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction – Challenge to execution order invoking supervisory powers of High Court – Held: No jurisdictional error or procedural infirmity shown – Executing Court’s discretion exercised in accordance with law after affording full opportunity – No ground to invoke supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 [Paras 6–9]

Execution – Payment Dispute – False Plea of Payment Without Proof – Petitioner claimed to have paid decretal amount earlier but failed to produce receipt or file appeal – Court found plea to be false and evasive – Such conduct not a ground to interfere with execution proceedings – Petition dismissed with costs [Paras 7–9]

Decision: Civil revision petition dismissed – Order of civil imprisonment upheld – No procedural irregularity or denial of opportunity found – Pending applications also disposed

Money Laundering – Property – Allocation of Coal Block – Property Defined – Coal block allocation obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation held to constitute “property” under Section 2(1)(v) of the PMLA – Such allocation conferred valuable commercial rights enabling economic benefit – Allocation letter deemed a legal asset triggering financial activity and forming part of the offence of money laundering [Paras 31–39].

Proceeds of Crime – Post Allocation Gains – Scheduled Offence – Misrepresentations led to coal block allocation followed by extraction of over 84 lakh MT of coal – Resulting financial benefit of Rs. 951.77 crores deemed proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) – Held: Learned Single Judge erred in holding allocation per se did not give rise to proceeds of crime – Utilisation of allocation forms nexus with criminal activity [Paras 40–52].

Continuing Offence – Scope of Directorate's Powers – Money laundering is a standalone and continuing offence – Directorate not bound by the time period of the chargesheet filed by predicate agency – Held: LSJ erred in restricting ED’s jurisdiction to pre-allocation events – Use of tainted property post allocation forms part of laundering process [Paras 58–65].

Attachment of Property – Equivalent Value – Validity of PAO – Directorate justified in attaching value of coal extracted post illegal allocation – Calculation of Rs. 951.77 Cr upheld – PIL failed to rebut presumption of illegality or provide untainted funding trail – PAO held valid under Section 5 of PMLA [Paras 53–57].

Maintainability – Nature of Jurisdiction – Article 226 vs 227 – Writ Petition before LSJ challenged executive action (Provisional Attachment Order) and invoked Article 226 – Not a supervisory order under Article 227 – Held: Intra-court appeal under Clause X of Letters Patent is maintainable [Paras 19–26].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of the learned Single Judge quashing Provisional Attachment Order and consequential proceedings is set aside – ED’s attachment order upheld – Matter remitted for further proceedings under PMLA.

Civil Writ - Recruitment Process – Assistant District Attorney (ADA) – Screening Test – Legality of Syllabus – Petitioners challenged the screening test syllabus notified under Advertisement No. 18 of 2025 for ADA posts which excluded legal subjects – Court held that the post of ADA being legally specialized, excluding legal subjects from the screening stage was arbitrary and lacked rational nexus with the object of selection – Such exclusion renders the process legally unsustainable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 40-44, 56-66]

Equal Opportunity – Article 16(1) Violation – Petitioners argued that majority of candidates were being unfairly ousted at the first stage without testing legal acumen – Court held that elimination of more than 85% aspirants based on a test devoid of legal subject matter amounts to denial of equal opportunity in public employment – State cannot justify exclusion based on logistical convenience – Screening process must fairly reflect core qualifications [Paras 45-55]

Statutory Compliance – Article 320(3)(b) and HPSC Regulations – Court found that altering the recruitment methodology including syllabus without prior consultation with the Government and in violation of Clause 41 & 42 of the 1973 Regulations was contrary to constitutional and statutory mandates – The Commission’s autonomy cannot override the requirement for lawful consultation and adherence to recruitment norms [Paras 67-75]

Judicial Review – Scope in Recruitment Matters – While courts generally defer to recruiting agencies in academic matters, interference is warranted when the process is manifestly arbitrary, violates statutory norms, or contravenes constitutional guarantees – Present process failed to meet standards of legality, fairness, and rationality – Judicial intervention justified [Paras 32-39]

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Screening Test syllabus and Advertisement No. 18 of 2025 quashed – Commission and State directed to revisit the recruitment process for ADA in line with constitutional and statutory requirements – Fresh process to be initiated, ensuring fairness and legal relevance [Paras 76-82]

Railways Act, 1989 – Section 124-A – Untoward Incident – Strict Liability – Bona Fide Passenger – Compensation – Deceased allegedly fell from an overcrowded passenger train due to a sudden jerk and succumbed to injuries during treatment – Tribunal dismissed claim holding that deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the ticket recovered was fabricated – On appeal, held: Documentary evidence including Inquest Report, Post-Mortem Report, and Final Investigation Report conclusively established accidental fall from train – Once it is shown that death occurred in an “untoward incident” while travelling with a valid ticket, Railways’ liability arises irrespective of fault – Strict liability under Section 124-A applies – Tribunal erred in rejecting claim on suspicion of ticket authenticity [Paras 13–16].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Bona Fide Passengership – Initial burden on claimant can be discharged by affidavit and production of journey ticket – Once prima facie case made, burden shifts to Railways to rebut – Mere absence of ticket or clerical error in train name does not negate bona fide travel – Reliance placed on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 and Kamukayi v. Union of India, (2023) 19 SCC 116 [Paras 15–17].

Pleadings – Amendment of Claim Petition – Procedural Fairness – Refusal of Tribunal to allow amendment correcting train name from “Puri–Rourkela Passenger” to “Konark Express” held hyper-technical – Such inadvertent clerical error caused by appellants’ illiteracy and distress on son’s death cannot defeat substantive rights under a beneficial statute – Liberal construction warranted [Paras 17–18].

Relief – Remand and Compensation – High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication on amended pleadings – However, directed Union of India to pay ₹8,00,000 compensation with 6% interest p.a. from the date of claim application till realization, to be deposited before Tribunal within three months [Paras 19–22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh adjudication – Compensation of ₹8,00,000 with 6% interest awarded to appellants – Interim orders vacated [Paras 20–23].

Section 84 of the A.P. Endowments Act - Religious and Charitable Trusts – Unauthorized Occupation – Tenants Treated as Encroachers – Endowments Tribunal’s Eviction Order Partly Upheld – Appellants were in occupation of shop premises forming part of trust property endowed under registered Will of 1958 – Trustees had granted lease but no formal lease deed existed – Tribunal found the appellants to be encroachers under Section 83 of the A.P. Endowments Act and directed eviction and payment of damages – Appellate Court found that original trustees had already transferred rights to another religious institution via registered settlement deed – All legal challenges to that transfer (including writ petitions and earlier CMAs) had been withdrawn – Held: Appellants’ lessor had given up any claim over property, and appellants could no longer assert tenancy rights – However, in view of long possession, nature of business, and payment of rents, damages awarded by Tribunal were set aside – Eviction upheld with two-month grace period to vacate [Paras 1–6]

Trust Law – Transfer of Trust Property – Validity of Settlement Deed – Effect of Withdrawal of Legal Proceedings – Settlement deed in favour of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Mangalagiri was challenged in O.S. No.144/2010 and W.P. No.31056/2010 – Both proceedings withdrawn – Held: Withdrawal of legal challenge affirmed the validity of the settlement deed – Appellants claiming under erstwhile trustees cannot sustain possession once the transfer stood undisputed [Paras 5–6]

Land Law – Possession Without Title – Unauthorized Occupation After Lessor’s Rights Extinguished – Relief of Damages Denied on Equitable Grounds – Though possession was unauthorized, Court exercised discretion in equity – Found appellants to be small shopkeepers earning livelihood – While eviction confirmed, direction to pay damages of ₹1,000 to ₹2,000 per month as ordered by Tribunal was set aside [Paras 5–6]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Tribunal’s order directing eviction confirmed – Direction to pay damages set aside – Appellants to vacate within two months – No order as to costs.