Land Revenue – Correction of RoR – Natural Justice – Order recalling rent fixation and altering RoR passed by Additional Tahasildar without issuing notice or hearing the recorded tenants – Held: Violates settled principles of natural justice; order quashed; matter remanded for fresh hearing [Paras 4-6, 8].

Record of Rights – Correction without Notice – Audi Alteram Partem – Additional Tahasildar recalled earlier rent-fixation order and restored land to previous status without issuing notice to petitioners whose names already stood recorded in RoR – Held: Any correction of RoR affecting rights of recorded tenants must mandatorily be preceded by notice and opportunity of hearing – Impugned order passed in violation of natural justice and thus unsustainable [Paras 3-6].

Revenue Proceedings – Rent Fixation – Petitioners had valid rent receipts and RoR entries pursuant to Tahasildar’s order dated 16.07.2019 – Subsequent suo motu recall by Additional Tahasildar on 03.02.2020 without hearing the petitioners held arbitrary and contrary to law – Order deserves to be quashed [Paras 2-4, 6].

Natural Justice – Mandatory Compliance – Court reiterated that any order affecting vested rights in land records cannot be passed behind the back of the recorded persons – Absence of notice renders order void for breach of natural justice – Hearing is indispensable whenever RoR correction affects existing entries [Para 5].

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 03.02.2020 quashed – Matter remitted to Additional Tahasildar for fresh adjudication after granting opportunity of hearing to all concerned – Proceedings to be completed preferably within two months from appearance of parties [Paras 7-9].

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Non-payment of Sale Consideration – Plaintiff transferred property by registered sale deed but claimed that consideration was unpaid and sought cancellation of deed and injunction – Trial court held that non-payment does not invalidate a completed sale – Appellate Court affirmed rejection of plaint – Held: Once title passes via registered sale deed, non-payment of consideration is no ground for cancellation – Remedy lies in suit for recovery – Rejection of plaint proper [Paras 9, 14, 16, 20-22].

Property Law – Registered Sale Deed – Title Transfer – Sale deed executed and registered for ₹32.50 lakhs with only ₹20,000 paid and rest via dishonoured cheques – Plaintiff sought to cancel the sale – Held: Under Section 54 TPA, sale completes on execution and registration regardless of full payment – Title passed to vendee – Plaintiff ceased to be owner and cannot seek cancellation [Paras 14, 17-18].

Specific Relief – Permanent Injunction – Consequential Relief – Plaintiff also sought injunction to protect alleged possession – Held: Once cancellation of deed is not granted and title vests in vendee, no injunction can be granted against true owner – Injunction being consequential to declaratory relief must fail [Paras 15, 16, 20].

Evidence – Contradiction with Registered Sale Deed – Plaintiff’s claim of continued possession contrary to recitals in registered deed – Held: Such plea barred under Section 92 of Evidence Act – Plaintiff estopped from denying transfer of possession mentioned in sale deed [Para 19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC – Trial court’s rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC affirmed – Plaintiff's remedy lies in separate suit for recovery of sale consideration, not cancellation or injunction.

Rent Law – Fair Rent Fixation – Retrospective Operation – Equitable Relief – Arrears – Tenant Surrender – Delay in Proceedings – Tenant cannot be burdened with arrears at newly fixed fair rent retrospectively from 2013 when rent control proceedings prolonged for over a decade – Appellate Court had fixed Rs.32,000/month with 5% annual increase from 2014 onwards – Held: Direction to pay arrears at a rate 150 times higher than existing rent would result in grave prejudice – Rent to be paid at Rs.25,000/month from 24.02.2021 (date of Rent Controller’s order) and Rs.32,000/month from 18.03.2024 (Appellate Court’s order) – Arrears from 2013 to 2021 not recoverable in rent control proceedings but liberty left to landlord to pursue civil remedy – Modification granted to ensure balance of interests [Paras 1, 2, 5, 6].

Rent Control – Public Policy – Delay in Adjudication – Effect – Rent control statutes intended to protect both landlord and tenant – Proceedings that linger for more than 10 years cannot be used to justify oppressive financial burdens – Held: Rent control litigation cannot be permitted to function as an instrument of oppression due to systemic delays – Tenant’s act of surrender during pendency cannot be overlooked [Paras 3, 5, 6].

Limitation – Civil Suit for Arrears – Cause of Action – Landlord’s claim for arrears from 2013 onwards to be decided in civil suit – Court refrains from deciding limitation issue in rent control proceedings [Para 4].

Decision: Order of Appellate Authority modified – Landlord entitled to claim arrears only from 24.02.2021 at Rs.25,000/month and from 18.03.2024 at Rs.32,000/month with 5% increase – Revisions disposed of accordingly.

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Allegation of Forgery and Land Grab – Accused No. 3 sought pre-arrest protection under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in FIR No. 559 of 2025 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, and 34 of IPC – FIR alleged that applicant conspired to execute forged conveyance deed by altering Power of Attorney and tampering revenue records – FIR lodged 12–15 years after impugned transactions, raising issue of delay – Held: Delay, civil settlements, existence of registered documents and permission under tenancy law weigh in favour of applicant – Anticipatory bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1, 10, 30, 35-39, 47, 49, 54, 56, 69-70].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Relevance – Transactions date back to 2003–2011 – Conveyance deed executed in 2008, rectification in 2011, and permission under Section 43 of BTAL Act granted after due inquiry – Civil suits filed, confirming deeds executed – No action taken by complainant or predecessors for over a decade – Held: Delay affects reliability of allegations and suggests attempt to unsettle concluded title – Prima facie, FIR appears to revive stale disputes under guise of criminal prosecution [Paras 35-39, 44-48, 54].

Forgery – Allegations of Tampering with 7/12 Extract – Prosecution relied on Tahsildar’s statement that extract annexed to 2008 deed was of a different village (Godev instead of Navghar) and lacked Section 43 entry – Alleged use of whitener to alter revenue records – Held: Allegations are serious and raise issue of public record tampering – However, documents are registered and on public record since 2008 – Criminality, if any, to be investigated but does not warrant custodial interrogation at this stage [Paras 40-42, 55].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity Not Shown – Applicant cooperated during interim protection – Appeared before IO, produced documents – No specific recovery shown to require custody – Co-accused purchasers already granted bail – Held: Liberty cannot be curtailed merely because investigation is ongoing – Stringent bail conditions can secure cooperation and prevent obstruction [Paras 42-43, 58-62].

Antecedents – Applicant Involved in 35–42 Cases – Some cases resulted in acquittals, quashing, or summary reports – Allegation that criminal history was partially suppressed – Held: Antecedents not to be ignored but not decisive unless they show pattern of evasion or obstruction – Balance can be maintained through safeguards ensuring cooperation with investigation [Paras 18, 28, 63-68].

Precedent – Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana (2023) 8 SCC 181 – Relied on by prosecution to argue that delay not fatal in cases of land grab and forgery – Held: Facts distinguishable – In Manchanda, forged document remained concealed for 20 years – In present case, documents are registered, acted upon, and part of public record – Principle of delay remains relevant when no concealment or fraud on record is established [Paras 50-54, 56-57].

Decision: Anticipatory bail granted – Applicant to be released on bond of ₹50,000 with two local sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure cooperation, prevent tampering and protect investigation – Order clarified to not affect parties’ civil rights – Civil proceedings may continue independently [Paras 70-73].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Forgery and Fraud – The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application by an accused (accused No. 3) in a case involving alleged forgery of documents, fraudulent land transactions, and tampering with revenue records (7/12 extracts) related to ancestral land. The transactions in question dated back to 2003-2011, while the FIR was lodged in 2025, raising significant questions about delay. The court examined the impact of registered documents, rectification deeds, statutory permissions granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, and prior civil settlements on the bona fides of the delayed FIR. It also assessed the necessity of custodial interrogation given the applicant's cooperation and the release of co-accused on bail, and the relevance of the applicant's criminal antecedents. The court distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court's ruling in Pratibha Manchanda by noting that the documents here were registered and publicly accessible for years, unlike the concealed forged documents in Pratibha Manchanda. The court concluded that while the allegations of forgery were serious, the substantial delay, public nature of the transactions, and the applicant's cooperation weighed in favor of granting anticipatory bail with stringent conditions. [Paras 1, 30-34, 38-39, 44-47, 52-54, 56-57, 59-62, 65-66, 69]

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Delay in lodging FIR – The court noted a substantial delay of 12 to 15 years in lodging the FIR concerning transactions that were registered and part of public records since 2003-2011. This delay, coupled with the existence of registered instruments, statutory permissions granted after inquiry, and prior civil settlements involving the same property and parties, raised serious questions about the bona fides of the prosecution. The court emphasized that such prolonged inaction, especially when civil remedies were pursued, militates against the genuineness of the grievance and suggests the criminal law might be invoked to unsettle concluded civil matters. [Paras 35, 38-39, 44-47]

Criminal Law – Evidence – Public Records and Civil Adjudication – The court highlighted that the impugned transactions involved registered conveyance and rectification deeds, which were part of the public record for over a decade. Furthermore, statutory permission under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer after due inquiry, carrying a presumption of regularity. The existence of civil disputes, settlements, and confirming deeds related to the same property indicated that interested parties had acknowledged and acted upon these transactions. While civil adjudication does not entirely bar criminal prosecution for forgery, these factors are crucial in assessing the bona fides of a delayed FIR. [Paras 35-37, 45-46, 52]

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Custodial Interrogation – The court reiterated that custodial interrogation is not a routine requirement and must be justified by the investigating agency demonstrating its indispensability for eliciting information not otherwise obtainable. In this case, the applicant had cooperated with the investigation, produced documents, and co-accused purchasers had already been granted bail. The prosecution failed to identify any specific recovery or circumstance that exclusively hinged on the applicant's custodial presence, leading the court to conclude that non-custodial measures with stringent conditions could adequately safeguard the investigation. [Paras 42-43, 58-62, 65-66, 69]

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Criminal History – The applicant had a chequered history with several registered cases. However, the court emphasized the need for a qualitative assessment rather than merely counting the number of cases. It noted that in many cases, the applicant had been acquitted, FIRs quashed, or summary reports filed, indicating that the antecedents did not conclusively establish an inclination to evade law or obstruct investigation. The court held that antecedents are a relevant factor but not an absolute bar to anticipatory bail, warranting suitable protective conditions instead of outright rejection. [Paras 18, 28, 63-64, 67-68]

Criminal Law – Precedent – Forgery and Delay – The court carefully considered the Supreme Court's judgment in Pratibha Manchanda, which held that delay in lodging an FIR is not material in cases of clear forgery involving public documents, especially when the complainant had no prior knowledge of collusive civil proceedings and clandestine transactions. However, the High Court distinguished the present case, noting that here, the impugned documents (conveyance, rectification deeds) were registered and publicly accessible for years, and civil suits had been instituted. Unlike Pratibha Manchanda where the forged document was concealed for decades, the transactions here were visible and engaged with by the family, thus making the substantial delay a significant factor. [Paras 26, 29, 50-54]

Decision: – Anticipatory bail granted – Subject to stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation, prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and restrict movement. The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, Shyamsundar Radhyesham Agarwal, in connection with Crime Register No. 559 of 2025. The applicant is to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two local sureties of Rs. 50,000 each. Conditions include furnishing residential address, cooperating with the investigation, making himself available for questioning, producing all relevant documents, not inducing/threatening witnesses, not tampering with evidence, not leaving the trial court's jurisdiction without permission, reporting to the investigating officer weekly, and submitting his passport. The court also clarified that the order does not affect the civil rights of the parties. [Paras 69-73]

Taxation Law - Customs – Adjudication after Remand – Cross-Examination – Tribunal directed that all six relied-upon witnesses be made available for cross-examination – After remand, three witnesses appeared and were cross-examined, deposing in favour of petitioners – Three others failed to appear despite four opportunities – Adjudicating authority relied only on statements of non-appearing witnesses and ignored evidence of appearing witnesses – Held illegal and contrary to settled principles [Paras 1–2, 8].

Section 138-B, Customs Act – Relevancy of Statements – Clause (b) mandates cross-examination before statement can be used – Clause (a) applies only where non-availability is proved (death, inability, being kept out of the way, unreasonable delay, etc.) – Adjudicating authority must record a specific finding of impossibility of securing witness – Further, assessee must be confronted with such statement with opportunity to rebut – Held: Mandatory procedure not followed; reliance on untested statements impermissible [Paras 9–11].

Natural Justice – Denial of Cross-Examination – Statements of witnesses who were never tested through cross-examination cannot be used to fasten liability without satisfying strict conditions of Section 138-B(1)(a) – Absence of reasons, absence of findings on non-availability, and non-confrontation render the order unsustainable – Ignoring cross-examined witnesses’ testimony held violative of fair play [Paras 10–12].

Tribunal’s Remand Directions – Compliance – Tribunal remanded matter solely to permit cross-examination of all six witnesses – Post-remand proceedings had to evaluate both categories of witnesses: (i) three produced and cross-examined, and (ii) three unproduced – Adjudicating authority failed to apply correct approach as laid down in Section 138-B – Held: Directions not properly understood or applied [Paras 6–12].

Judicial Review – Scope – High Court clarifies correct legal approach under Section 138-B – Adjudicating authority must first attempt to secure presence of witness; if presence cannot be secured, must record finding; next, must confront assessee with statement; then must evaluate statement with corroboration – None of these steps were followed – Impugned order quashed [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 18.03.2025 set aside – Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication strictly in accordance with law and Court’s directions – To be completed within 12 weeks – All issues kept open [Para 13].

Consumer Law – Dismissal for Non-Prosecution – Restoration – Writ Jurisdiction – Complaint filed before State Consumer Commission dismissed for non-prosecution – Single Judge set aside dismissal relying on Sections 38(2)(c) and 49 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, holding the Commission was bound to decide on merits even in absence of complainant – Held: Single Judge erred in entertaining writ petition under Article 226 – Alternative remedy under Section 58(1)(b) before National Commission was available – Writ appeal allowed, judgment set aside [Paras 3-6, 8.2, 9].

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternative Remedy – Scope – Availability of remedy before National Commission bars writ under Article 226 – Court reiterates that statutory mechanism cannot be bypassed merely because order is erroneous or jurisdictionally flawed – Cites Supreme Court decision in Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2510 – Held: Entertaining writ despite statutory remedy violates settled principles of judicial review [Paras 5.2, 8, 8.1].

Consumer Protection – Appeal vs. Revision – Statutory Remedy – Dismissal of complaint not appealable under Section 51 – However, remedy of revision under Section 58(1)(b) remains available – Held: Even if dismissal was for non-prosecution, revision before National Commission could have addressed alleged jurisdictional irregularity [Paras 5.1, 8].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Judgment of learned Single Judge set aside – Respondents granted liberty to approach National Commission within 30 days – Time spent in High Court proceedings to be excluded for limitation purposes [Para 9].

Civil Law - Interim Injunction – Status Quo – Public Interest Projects – Flood Mitigation – Climate Change Obligations – Article 21 Right to Clean Environment – Article 39(b) Distribution of Material Resources – Section 41(ha) Specific Relief Act – Supreme Court Directions – Status Quo Modified Allowing State to Proceed with Ponds & Eco Park Development [Paras 1.1, 1.2, 1.5–1.6, 2–7].

Interim Order – Status Quo – Modification – Public Interest Projects – Section 41(ha) Specific Relief Act – Infrastructure Works – Original injunction impeded continuation of public projects, namely strengthening of four ponds already excavated and development of an Eco Park conceived for flood mitigation and environmental enhancement – Court held that injunctions cannot impede infrastructure projects under Sec. 41(ha) – Status quo order modified to permit all works related to pond development and Eco Park creation [Paras 1.1, 2].

Supreme Court Directions – Clarification – Effect on Pending Appeal – Though Supreme Court directed the Division Bench to dispose of the application expeditiously, High Court proceeded with the OSA as respondent sought time to obtain clarification – Interim issue did not preclude deciding challenge to status quo order [Paras 1.3–1.4].

Environmental Imperatives – Flood Mitigation – Ecological Concerns – Climate Change – Court relied on “Chennai Floods 2015 – A Rapid Assessment Report” by IISc highlighting massive loss of life, economic damage, and urgent necessity for flood-resilient infrastructure – Noted recurring extreme weather events attributable to climate change – Courts must consider environmental protection as part of Article 21 right to a clean and healthy environment [Paras 3, 3.1–3.5, 4].

Constitutional Duty – Right to Clean Environment – Climate-Related Obligations – Referred to Supreme Court judgment in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India emphasising State’s duty to adopt preventive and infrastructural measures to safeguard environment and mitigate climate risks – Development of ponds and Eco Park considered part of State’s affirmative constitutional obligation under Article 21 [Paras 4–4.1].

Directive Principles – Article 39(b) – Material Resources to Sub-serve Common Good – Suit land being Government property, its use for flood mitigation and environmental projects aligns with constitutional mandate to distribute material resources to best serve public interest – Private use by race club for benefit of few cannot override common good – Cited State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Abu Kavur Bai and Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [Paras 5–5.3].

Doctrine of Public Trust – Scarce Urban Land – Public Use Priority – Land in metropolitan areas is scarce and utilisation for public environmental purposes outweighs private commercial recreational use – State justified in resuming land to fulfil public trust obligations [Para 5.3].

Injunction Principles – Public Interest – Interim Orders Not to Halt Public Projects – Referred to Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and DDA v. Skipper Construction warning against mechanical grant of injunctions that impede public projects – Public interest, cost implications and environmental concerns must be factored; delay causes cost escalation and public detriment [Paras 6, 6.1].

Eco Park – Public Health and Pollution Concerns – Multiple Public Benefits – Eco Park would mitigate flood risk, improve air quality, act as lung space, enhance biodiversity, support tourism, and address pollution levels – Court emphasised contemporary public health crises due to severe AQI in urban centres such as Delhi [Paras 6.3].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Status Quo Vacated – Strong public interest and constitutional obligations require permitting State to continue pond development and Eco Park project – Appeal allowed and status quo order set aside [Para 8].

Criminal Law – Prohibitory Order – Section 163 BNSS (erstwhile Section 144 Cr.P.C.) – Legality of ex-parte order restricting a Pontiff's entry into a district – Held: Order quashed for being disproportionate, lacking emergent justification for its ex-parte nature, and violating fundamental rights, especially when based on a prior order clarified by the Apex Court not to be a basis for fresh restrictions [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Procedure – Prohibitory Order – Section 163 BNSS (erstwhile Section 144 Cr.P.C.) – Nature and Scope – Held: The power under Section 163 BNSS (akin to Section 144 Cr.P.C.) is remedial and preventive, intended for urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger requiring immediate prevention or speedy remedy; it is not to be used to suppress legitimate expression or democratic rights, and must be exercised bona fide, reasonably, with application of mind, and employing the least intrusive measures, balancing rights and restrictions. Repetitive orders are an abuse of power. [Paras 12.2, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.10, 15]

Criminal Procedure – Prohibitory Order – Ex-parte Orders – Justification for – Held: Ex-parte orders under Section 163(2) BNSS (erstwhile Section 144(2) Cr.P.C.) are justified only in genuine emergencies where circumstances do not permit timely service of notice; the Magistrate must record material facts, reasons for urgency, and why notice could not be issued, as a mere statement of necessity is insufficient, and failure to provide a pre-decisional or post-decisional hearing when time permits renders the order illegal. [Paras 12.2, 12.5, 13.3, 13.4, 13.7, 13.8, 14, 17]

Criminal Procedure – Prohibitory Order – Duration and Proportionality – Held: Orders under Section 163 BNSS (erstwhile Section 144 Cr.P.C.) are temporary, not permanent or semi-permanent, with a maximum duration of two months by a Magistrate; the restraint must be minimal, commensurate with the object, and proportionate to the apprehended threat, not exceeding the constraints of the particular situation in nature or duration; a blanket order debarring entry into an entire district for two months when the event was for three days is excessive and disproportionate. [Paras 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 13.3, 13.11, 14, 16, 17, 19]

Constitutional Law – Judicial Review – Scope of – Held: Orders passed under Section 163 BNSS (erstwhile Section 144 Cr.P.C.), though executive/administrative, are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/32 of the Constitution if they violate fundamental rights; judicial review focuses on the decision-making process, interfering only if the order is patently without jurisdiction, vitiated by mala fides, based on no material, or suffers from manifest arbitrariness, and not to substitute the court's opinion for that of the competent authority. [Paras 12.3, 12.5, 12.6, 13.5, 13.8, 14]

Constitutional Law – Fundamental Rights – Freedom of Movement, Speech, and Religion – Restrictions on – Held: The fundamental rights to free movement (Article 19(1)(d)), speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)), and to profess and propagate religion (Articles 25, 26) are subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5) in the interest of public order; however, such restrictions must be least intrusive, justified by objective and concrete material facts, and not based on mere subjective impression, surmises, or exaggerated susceptibilities, as the State has a duty to protect these rights. [Paras 8, 9, 12.5, 12.6, 13.7, 13.8, 14, 17]

Precedent – Application of Apex Court Clarification – Held: The Apex Court's clarification that a previous prohibitory order should not form the basis for passing fresh orders must be strictly adhered to; relying solely on a prior dismissed writ petition and the Apex Court's non-interference order as the exclusive foundation for a new restrictive action, especially when the Apex Court explicitly stated it should not be a basis for externment from other districts, constitutes a blatant violation and suggests an absence of other material against the petitioner. [Paras 2.1, 4, 8, 9, 18]

Decision – Writ Petition – Quashing of Prohibitory Order – Held: The writ petition is allowed, and the prohibitory order dated 04.11.2025 is quashed; the order failed the tests of constitutionality and legality, being disproportionate, lacking emergent justification for its ex-parte nature, and violating fundamental rights, particularly as it was based on a prior order clarified by the Apex Court not to be a basis for fresh restrictions; all consequential actions taken or to be taken pursuant to the impugned order also stand obliterated. [Paras 19, 20]