Probate Proceedings – Jurisdiction of Probate Court – Pendency of Civil Suit Challenging Will – Probate petition filed earlier seeking grant of probate of registered Will dated 31.03.2022 executed by deceased Indra Prakash Gupta – Trial court rejected probate petition solely on ground that a subsequent civil suit seeking cancellation of the same Will was pending – Held: Probate Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine proof and validity of Will and probate petition cannot be rejected merely due to pendency of civil suit – Impugned order set aside and probate petition restored [Paras 16–17].

Indian Succession Act – Section 295 – Procedure in Contentious Probate Proceedings – Once objections are raised to the grant of probate, proceedings are to take the form of a regular civil suit – Questions relating to execution, genuineness and testamentary capacity of the testator can be adjudicated within probate proceedings themselves – Separate civil suit for cancellation of Will not necessary where probate petition is already pending [Paras 10, 16].

Civil Procedure – Consolidation of Proceedings – Probate Petition and Civil Suit Concerning Same Will – Issues in probate case and civil suit substantially overlap – To avoid conflicting findings and in the interest of justice, both proceedings should be tried together – High Court transferred civil suit from Civil Judge (Senior Division) to District Judge and ordered consolidation with pending probate petition [Paras 13, 16, 19].

Appeal – Allowance – Erroneous Rejection of Probate Petition – District Judge erred in dismissing probate petition solely due to pendency of separate civil suit – Probate petition restored to original number and civil suit transferred and consolidated – District Judge directed to decide both proceedings together within six months without unnecessary adjournments [Paras 17–19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 21.07.2025 set aside – Misc. Probate Petition No.2 of 2023 restored – Original Suit No.369 of 2025 transferred to District Judge, Firozabad and consolidated with probate proceedings – Both matters directed to be decided together within six months.

Municipal Law – Building Plan Sanction – Security Zone – Imposition of Non-Statutory Conditions – Petitioners sought sanction for construction of G+4 residential building of height 15.49 metres situated within 500 metres of Nabanna declared as Security Zone – Municipal Commissioner granted conditional approval imposing several conditions based on police inputs including erection of view cutter, prohibition of windows/balconies facing security zone and police verification of residents – Held: Where building proposal conforms to statutory requirements including height restriction under Section 244 of Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, additional conditions lacking statutory basis cannot be imposed merely on perceived security concerns – Executive inputs cannot override statutory scheme [Paras 42–47].

Municipal Regulation – Scope of Power to Impose Conditions – Statutory Limits – Municipal Commissioner empowered to regulate construction and impose conditions relating to safety and planning under Act – However such power must be traceable to statute – Conditions imposed solely at instance of police authorities without statutory backing held ultra vires – Administrative or executive directions cannot curtail property or development rights absent legislative authority [Paras 46–48, 51].

Building Regulation – View Cutter and Restriction on Windows/Balconies – Conditions Nos. 4 and 5 – Condition requiring ten-foot-high “view cutter” and prohibition on windows or balconies facing security zone examined – Held: Such restrictions contradict mandatory building norms relating to ventilation and habitability and are not contemplated under Sections 243 or 244 of the Act which only regulate building height in notified security zones – Conditions disproportionate and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution [Paras 49–57].

Municipal Law – Police Verification of Residents – Condition Beyond Scope of Building Regulation – Condition No. 16 requiring verification of “character antecedents” of all existing and future occupants held wholly alien to building sanction regime – Municipal authorities cannot impose surveillance-oriented obligations unrelated to structural regulation – Requirement amounts to intrusion into privacy and liberty under Article 21 and lacks statutory foundation [Paras 58–62].

Constitutional Law – Property Rights – Proportionality – While security concerns surrounding strategic installations are legitimate, restrictions on development must be proportionate and supported by statutory authority – Blanket architectural restrictions and mandatory occupant verification based on speculative security apprehension constitute arbitrary exercise of power offending Articles 14 and 300A [Paras 54–57, 64–66].

Decision: Writ petitions partly allowed – Condition Nos. 4, 5 and 16 imposed in building sanction order dated 24.09.2024 quashed as ultra vires and unconstitutional – Remaining conditions upheld – Authorities directed to process and finalise building plan sanction without insisting upon quashed conditions within twelve weeks.

Service Law – Judicial Officer – Adverse Entry in Confidential Report – Integrity – Discreet Enquiry – Petitioner, a Junior Civil Judge, received his ACR for 2009 in November 2011 recording his work as average, integrity as doubtful and judicial approach as erratic – ACR was based on pending disciplinary enquiries and discreet enquiries by a Judge of the High Court – Both disciplinary enquiries were subsequently dropped in 2012 – Review application filed by petitioner was rejected in February 2013 – Petitioner challenged the adverse entry and rejection of review as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 – Held: Court cannot substitute its view for that of the review committee in matters of integrity – Writ Petition dismissed – However, Court issues caution that adverse remarks on integrity must be based on inputs from diverse sources and not on a single input [Paras 2–11].

"Discreet Enquiry as Basis for Adverse Entry – Scope and Limitations"

Confidential Report – Discreet Enquiry – Integrity of Judicial Officer – Petitioner contended that once disciplinary proceedings were dropped and he was exonerated, adverse entry recording doubtful integrity could not survive – Further contended that discreet enquiry alone cannot form basis for adverse remarks in ACR – Court distinguishes the facts from the Delhi High Court judgment relied upon by petitioner – Held: In matters of integrity, it is extremely difficult to obtain direct evidence or definite material – Court cannot interfere with the view of the review committee on the basis that the entry was founded on discreet enquiries, where direct evidence is inherently difficult to obtain [Paras 7–9].

"Protection of Judicial Officers – Adverse Remarks on Integrity Require Inputs from Diverse Sources"

Judicial Service – Confidential Reports – Integrity – Adverse Remarks – Court observes that disgruntled employees, colleagues or litigants are prone to making allegations against judicial officers on integrity – Held: Adequate precautions must be taken before adverse remarks are placed in Confidential Reports of judicial officers – It would not be safe to record an adverse entry on integrity based on a single input, even if from the Principal District Judge – Allegations must be cross-checked from diverse sources before recording such remarks – Court issues this caution even while declining to interfere with the impugned order [Para 10].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Constitutional Law – Article 371-A – Legislative Competence of State of Nagaland – Petroleum and Natural Gas – Article 131 Jurisdiction – PIL Maintainability – The State of Nagaland enacted the Nagaland Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulations, 2012 and Rules, 2012 pursuant to a resolution dated 26.07.2010 of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly, claiming power under Article 371-A(1)(a)(iv) which provides that no Act of Parliament in respect of ownership and transfer of land and its resources shall apply to the State of Nagaland unless the Legislative Assembly so decides – Union of India contested the legislative competence of the Nagaland Legislature, contending that regulation and development of oilfields and mineral oil is exclusively reserved for Parliament under Entry 53 of List-I – Core question whether Article 371-A confers affirmative legislative competence upon the State or is merely a disabling provision preventing application of Union laws – Held: The dispute between the Union of India and the State of Nagaland on the question of legislative competence falls squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131(a) of the Constitution – High Court declines to adjudicate the issue [Paras 35-49].

PIL – Maintainability – Article 226 – Limits of PIL Jurisdiction – PIL under Article 226 is maintainable where the petitioner is a public-spirited person raising issues of fundamental rights violations of poor, disadvantaged, or marginalised sections, or environmental and human rights issues – The issue raised in the present PIL relates to legislative competence of the State and does not involve curtailment or deprivation of any fundamental right of a citizen – Union of India is not disabled from approaching an appropriate forum to challenge the validity of the 2012 Regulations and Rules – Ordinarily, High Courts should not entertain PILs questioning the constitutionality or validity of statutes or statutory rules – PIL closed in exercise of self-restraint [Paras 43-50].

Article 131 – Exclusive Jurisdiction of Supreme Court – The real issue of whether the Nagaland Legislature had legislative competence to enact the 2012 Regulations and Rules, as contested by the Union of India, is a dispute between the Union and the State of Nagaland which falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Clause (a) of Article 131 – The presence of respondent No. 7, a private company, as a party does not alter this conclusion since respondent No. 7 has no locus to contest the question of legislative competence between the Union and the State [Paras 35-42].

Decision: PIL closed – Liberty granted to the Union of India to assail the Nagaland Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulations, 2012, the Rules, 2012, and the tender/Expression of Interest process in an appropriate manner – No order as to costs.

Civil Law – Substitution of Legal Representatives – Order 22 Rule 3 CPC – Will Under Adjudication – Plaintiff Smt. Preeto Devi filed a suit for vacant possession against her son Balwinder Singh – During pendency of the suit, plaintiff expired on 22.10.2024 – Application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC seeking substitution of Babhishan Singh, his wife Urmila Devi and two grandsons on the basis of a Will dated 05.03.2020 – Validity of the said Will already under challenge by the defendant before the same court in separate proceedings – Trial Court partly allowed the application directing substitution of Babhishan Singh as legal representative but rejected substitution of Urmila Devi, Udey Pathania and Nahar Pathania – Held: All sons of the deceased are necessary and proper parties and are required to be arrayed in the proceedings – Validity of the Will cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC – No infirmity in the order of the Trial Court – Petition dismissed [Paras 11-15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order of the learned Civil Judge, Indora, dated 19.09.2025 upheld.

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for strangulating his wife with a towel and assaulting her with a kitchen cutting tool on 20.11.2017 – Trial Court sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- – Prosecution sought to establish guilt through circumstances of motive, recovery of MOs 1 and 3, conduct after incident and medical evidence – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted [Paras 15-28].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Non-Examination of Key Witness – Son of deceased and accused (Kavin Prasad) was the person who first informed PW4 about the incident and was likely the only person who witnessed or saw the accused at the scene – Prosecution failed to examine Kavin Prasad either during investigation or before the Court – Investigation Officer neither recorded his statement nor included him in the list of witnesses – In the absence of any witness to establish the last seen theory, no material existed to link the accused to the incident – Serious lapse on the part of the Investigation Officer condemned – Motive and strained relationship alone cannot lead to a presumption of guilt [Paras 21-26].

Hostile Witnesses – Evidence of No Value – PW4, brother of the accused, and PW5, a neighbour, both turned hostile – Nothing emerged from their evidence to assist the prosecution's case [Paras 18-19].

Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution must prove each circumstance forming a chain so as to completely exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused – When chain of circumstances is snapped and two views are possible, the accused is entitled to the view favourable to him – Strong suspicion cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 24-27].

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges and directed to be set at liberty.

Tenancy Law – Will by Tenant – Bequeathal of Tenancy Rights – Section 45, H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act – Panchi was recorded as a non-occupancy tenant under Ishru, a widow, as per Jamabandi for 1977-78 – Panchi executed a Will dated 27.11.1984 in favour of the defendant – Defendant contended that Panchi had become the owner upon commencement of the Act – Held: Section 104(8) of the Act expressly excludes operation of Sections 104(1) to (6) in the case of a tenancy under a widow during her lifetime – Panchi could not have acquired proprietary rights during the lifetime of Ishru – Tenancy rights cannot be bequeathed by way of a Will – Section 45 of the Act provides the exclusive rule of succession to tenancy rights – Will held void ab initio [Paras 28-36].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Tenancy Dispute Between Successors of Tenant – Section 58 Bar – Sections 112 and 115, H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act – Bar under Section 58 applies only where the status of landlord and tenant is not disputed and not to cases where parties are claiming to be successors of the tenant – Dispute between two persons each claiming to be successor of a tenant does not fall within the cognizance of Revenue Courts – Bar of Civil Court jurisdiction under Sections 112 and 115 applies only when validity of orders passed under Chapter X is called in question, and not where no such order is involved – Civil Court jurisdiction held not barred [Paras 21-27, 37-40].

Additional Evidence – Application Dismissed – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Defendant sought to lead additional evidence by producing copy of Pariwar register to prove date of death of Ishru – No pleading in the written statement that Ishru had died and Panchi had consequently become owner – Additional evidence cannot be allowed to prove a plea never taken in pleadings – Further, copy of Pariwar register is not admissible to prove date of birth or death; only entries in the Register of Births and Deaths can be proved – Application dismissed [Paras 15-20].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – All three substantial questions of law answered against the appellants – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court upheld.

Preventive Detention – Public Safety Act – Law and Order vis-à-vis Public Order – Bovine Smuggling – Petitioner detained under Section 8(1)(a) of the J&K Public Safety Act by order dated 11.07.2025 on the basis of two FIRs and three unverified Daily Diary Entries alleging habitual bovine smuggling – One FIR already disposed of and the other (FIR No. 0049/2025 dated 03.05.2025) pending investigation – Petitioner not directly involved in the pending FIR as admitted by the Detaining Authority – Held: Alleged activities of bovine smuggling constitute infractions of law and order and do not rise to the level of acts prejudicial to public order as defined under Section 8(3) of the Act – Detention order quashed [Paras 10-19].

Public Order – Distinction from Law and Order – Acts affecting individuals or isolated criminal conduct cannot be equated with disturbance of public order – Public order is the even tempo of life of the community – Only where the disturbance subverts the community at large does it amount to a public order problem – Mere infraction of law leads to disorder but not necessarily public disorder [Paras 13-16].

Preventive Detention – Proximity – Live Link – Detention order dated 11.07.2025 passed about two months after the last alleged incident of 03.05.2025 – Three Daily Diary Entries unverified and uncorroborated – No explanation by Detaining Authority for the delay – Undue and unreasonable gap between alleged activities and passing of detention order snaps the live link – Detaining Authority also failed to address why normal criminal law was inadequate and did not challenge the bail granted to the petitioner – Non-application of mind established [Paras 19-24].

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction – Misuse of Power – Preventive detention is an exception to the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 – Detention orders must be passed with great care and caution, only in cases of genuine and inevitable necessity – Provisions of Article 22(5) require proper communication of grounds, opportunity to make representation and application of mind – Impugned order is the outcome of non-application of mind and misuse of powers [Paras 25-27].

Decision: Petition allowed – Detention order No. 08-PSA-2025 dated 11.07.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Udhampur, quashed – Petitioner directed to be released forthwith from preventive detention.

Forest Rights – Other Traditional Forest Dwellers – Section 2(o), Forest Rights Act, 2006 – Burden of Proof – Appellants claimed rights over Reserved Forest land to the extent of 291.60 acres in Suriyur Village, Salem, contending that their ancestors were in possession and cultivation thereof for more than 75 years – District Level Committee rejected the claim finding no documents produced to prove possession and enjoyment for 75 years as required under the Act – Writ Court upheld the rejection – Held: Appellants failed to establish essential ingredients under the Act – Appeal dismissed [Paras 3-12].

Definition – "Other Traditional Forest Dwellers" – Three Generations – Section 2(o) of the Act, 2006 requires that the claimant must have been primarily residing in and depending on the forest land for bona fide livelihood needs for at least three generations prior to 13.12.2005 – Explanation to Section 2(o) defines "generation" as a period of 25 years, thus requiring continuous residence and dependence for 75 years – Appellants admittedly not residing in the subject land and living at addresses outside the Reserved Forest – Aadhar cards of appellants showed different addresses – Not established that appellants solely depend on forest produce for bona fide livelihood needs [Paras 8-11].

Reserved Forest – Encroachment – Jarugumalai Forest Block notified as Reserved Forest under Section 16 of the Madras Forest Act, 1882 with effect from 15.03.1926 – Appellants made attempts to encroach upon the Reserved Forest from 1980 – Forest Department filed cases against them for trespass – All encroachers evicted and entire land restored to Forest Department – Appellants cannot claim rights as traditional forest dwellers merely on account of attempted encroachment and cultivation of commercial nature [Paras 6, 10].

Judicial Review – Article 226 – Scope – Power of judicial review is to ensure that the decision-making process of the competent authority is in consonance with the provisions of statutes and rules, and not to review the merits of the decision itself – In the present case, procedures were followed scrupulously by the District Level Committee with due opportunity to parties – No interference warranted [Para 13].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – No costs.