Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentencing – Appellants challenged the conviction under Sections 307, 324, 34 RPC, and Section 4/25 Arms Act – Conviction under Section 307 RPC reduced from seven years to three years, other sentences upheld – Conviction under Section 4/25 Arms Act set aside due to lack of evidence regarding weapon dimensions – Appellants directed to surrender within 15 days [Paras 1-35].

Eyewitness Testimony – Contradictions and Reliability – Minor inconsistencies in witness statements regarding weapon types and sequence of events – Held not sufficient to discredit the overall prosecution case – Testimony of injured and eyewitnesses considered reliable – Supreme Court principles on ocular evidence and injured witness reliability applied [Paras 8-22].

Evidence – Recovery of Weapons – Admissibility issues – Weapons produced by accused, not recovered through disclosure – Held inadmissible but did not affect overall conviction due to strong eyewitness testimony – Supreme Court precedents on recovery of weapons cited [Paras 23-24].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability – Benefit under Section 4 denied – Offence under Section 307 RPC punishable with life imprisonment, thus not eligible for probation – Supreme Court precedent on probation applicability referenced [Paras 30-32].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction under Section 307/34 and 324/34 RPC upheld with reduced sentence – Conviction under Section 4/25 Arms Act set aside – Appellants directed to surrender for sentence execution – Trial court record and judgment copy sent back [Paras 34-35].

Domestic Violence – Residence Order – Petitioner, an elderly woman, sought protection under the PWDV Act to continue residing in her shared household – Magistrate granted residence order – Respondents, including petitioner’s son and daughter-in-law, contested citing financial liabilities and a previous tribunal order for alternative accommodation – Sessions Court vacated residence order, directing alternative accommodation [Paras 1-13].

Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act – Necessity for harmonizing provisions of the PWDV Act with the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act – Court emphasized that the PWDV Act does not override the necessity to balance rights of aggrieved women with financial realities and rights of respondents – Sessions Court’s direction for alternative accommodation affirmed, modifying it to ensure financial provision for rent [Paras 6-14].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition disposed of – Sessions Court judgment affirmed with modification – Respondents directed to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs for petitioner’s rent and maintenance – Petitioner to make similar deposits as needed to maintain alternative accommodation [Paras 14-15].
 

Land Tenancy Rights – Legal Status and Recording – Appellant’s recorded tenancy rights altered by Sub-Divisional Officer without due notice and hearing – High Court examines legal position post-1952 Act and full Bench decision in Tara & 35 Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan – Orders of revenue authorities and learned Single Judge set aside – Case remanded for proper enquiry under settled legal position [Paras 1-18].

Procedural Fairness – Due Process in Revenue Entries – Sub-Divisional Officer’s correction of revenue entries without enquiry held as improper – Emphasized necessity for notice and enquiry per Land Revenue Act – Rights of appellant to be determined based on status as tenant or labourer [Paras 3-4, 14-16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court directs Sub-Divisional Officer, Bali to conduct a fresh enquiry – Order of learned Single Judge and prior revenue authority orders set aside – Sub-Divisional Officer to determine appellant’s rights with proper opportunity for evidence and hearing [Para 16-18].

Public Interest Litigation – Construction and Management of Cattle Pounds – Petitioner seeks direction for the construction and maintenance of cattle pounds with requisite infrastructure to confine stray animals – State of Punjab, in response, submits status reports highlighting existing measures, financial assistance to Gaushalas, and relevant By-laws – Court concludes that the State’s measures address the petitioner’s concerns, emphasizing the need for adherence to By-laws to mitigate accidents and injuries caused by stray cattle [Paras 1-4].

Urban Local Bodies – Implementation of By-laws – Affidavits by Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh detail measures taken, including construction of cattle pounds, imposition of fines, and vaccination programs – Court recognizes these steps as sufficient redressal, with an advisory for States to consider uniform By-laws to enhance efficacy in handling stray cattle issues [Paras 5-9].

Decision – Writ petitions disposed of – Court mandates strict adherence to By-laws by State Authorities to ensure safe urban environments – States encouraged to adopt best practices from other jurisdictions for uniformity in stray cattle management [Paras 4, 9].

Registration Act – Section 68(2) – Superintendence Powers – Petitioner contested the cancellation of sale deeds by the District Registrar, asserting misuse of power without proper inquiry – High Court found the Registrar’s actions arbitrary and lacking legal foundation – Orders quashed [Paras 1-4, 6-9].

Registration Act – Section 77-A – Misuse of Authority – District Registrar re-cancelled the sale deeds based on a subsequent complaint despite an appellate directive to resolve the matter in civil court – High Court condemned this as misuse of power and directed disciplinary action against the Registrar [Paras 6-8].

Fraud vs. Forgery – Legal Distinctions – Court differentiated between fraud and forgery, emphasizing that allegations of fraud require detailed pleading and proof in civil proceedings – Impugned order found to be without sufficient legal basis [Para 6].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned order set aside – Directed parties to seek remedies in civil court – Directed Inspector General of Registration to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the District Registrar [Paras 7-9].

Civil Procedure – Addition of Parties – Petitioners challenged the order of the Appellate Court allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC for addition of parties – Contention that the Appellate Court did not properly consider the facts and circumstances – Petitioners argued the order was passed mechanically without due inquiry – High Court referred to the distinction between jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 as laid out in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, highlighting that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – High Court directed petitioners to convert the writ petition into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition [Paras 1-5].

Jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 – Judicial Orders of Civil Courts – High Court reiterated the principles from Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, emphasizing that judicial orders of civil courts are not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – Clarified the scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 – Referred to amendments in the Rules of the High Court at Patna post Radhey Shyam judgment – High Court allowed two weeks for conversion of the writ petition into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition [Paras 3-5].

Decision – Writ Petition Conversion – Held – Petitioners granted time to convert writ petition into Civil Miscellaneous Petition – Registry directed to assist in expediting the process – Case to be listed on priority after conversion [Para 5].

Workmen’s Compensation – Quantum of Compensation – Deceased workman was employed as a driver and died in a road accident – Compensation awarded based on minimum wages under G.O.Ms.No.58 dated 09.04.1991 – Evidence from the employer suggested a higher salary – High Court enhanced compensation to reflect actual salary as stated by the employer [Paras 1-13].

Principle of Just Compensation – Application in Workmen’s Compensation – Court emphasized the importance of providing just compensation and not merely relying on minimum statutory wages – Compensation can be enhanced even if the appeal is filed only by the insurance company [Paras 7-13].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Disposed of – Held:

Revised compensation payable to claimants enhanced to Rs. 3,25,365/- based on actual salary – Differential amount of revised compensation to be deposited within 30 days along with statutory interest – No costs awarded [Paras 12-13].

Surplus Land – Permissible Area – Non-utilization – The Court held that the land declared as surplus cannot be utilized by the State until the permissible area and surplus area of the plaintiff have been separated and distinctively identified as per Section 14(1) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The proceedings under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, must first be completed before declaring any land as surplus under the 1972 Act [Paras 14-17].

Pending Proceedings – Separation of Shares – The Court noted that the holding of the plaintiff, her father, and other co-sharers is still joint, and the permissible area and surplus area have not been separated. The State is directed to complete the proceedings under the 1953 Act regarding the declaration of land as surplus and then proceed under the 1972 Act by considering the plaintiff as an independent unit due to her marriage [Paras 14-17].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – The Court confirmed that the civil court has jurisdiction in this matter, as per the precedent set by the Five Judge Bench judgment in State of Haryana and others vs. Vinod Kumar and others, 1986 (1) PLR 222 [Para 10].

Injunction Against Dispossession – An injunction is issued restraining the State from dispossessing the plaintiff from the land transferred to her by her father until the proper legal proceedings are completed and specific surplus land is identified [Paras 16-17].

Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the decree of the first appellate court is set aside. The trial court's decree is restored, directing the State to complete the proceedings under the 1953 Act and then under the 1972 Act. The State is restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff until these proceedings are completed.

Protection of Life and Liberty – Minor’s Right to Choose – Petition filed under Article 226 by a minor girl seeking protection from family coercion after refusing arranged marriage – Father (Respondent no. 4) evicted minor from home, used physical violence – Representation to police ignored – High Court directs police to consider threat perception and provide protection if needed – Child Welfare Committee to ensure minor’s safety – Court acting as parens patriae emphasized necessity of protecting minor’s interests and legal compliance [Paras 1-13].

Procedure under Juvenile Justice Act – Child Welfare Committee’s role – Directed to report compliance and protect minor – Emphasized importance of procedural adherence to safeguard minor’s rights [Paras 9-12].

Decision- Petition disposed of with directions to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, to consider the representation and provide protection if threat is perceived – Minor to be produced before Child Welfare Committee if necessary – Compliance report required within two months [Paras 8-14].