Revenue Law – Suo Motu Proceedings – Delay – Section 79A – Bombay Land Revenue Code – Petitioners purchased agricultural land bearing Survey No. 59/paiki/1, Moje Ghanshyampur, Taluka Limbdi, District Surendranagar admeasuring 8 Acres 32 Gunthas from heirs of Raja Bechar under registered sale deed dated 19.03.1990 – Mutation Entry No. 650 certified on 24.05.1992 – Assistant Collector initiated suo motu proceedings in 2003 alleging breach of tenure conditions (Sharat Bhang) – Ordered vesting of land in State Government – Confirmed by Collector and Special Secretary (Appeals) – Held: Proceedings vitiated by unexplained delay of 11 years – Orders passed without jurisdiction – Writ allowed – Impugned order quashed and set aside [Paras 1–25].

"Suo Motu Powers Cannot Be Exercised After Unreasonable Delay — Delay of 11 Years Fatal"

Suo Motu Proceedings – Delay – Reasonable Period – Revenue authority initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 79A after a delay of 11 years from certification of Mutation Entry No. 650 in 1992 – No explanation offered for the inordinate delay – Held: Even where no period of limitation is prescribed for exercise of suo motu revisional powers, such powers must be exercised within a reasonable period – Delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon as it creates uncertainty and unsettles vested rights and third-party interests – A delay of 11 years without explanation is wholly unreasonable and vitiates the proceedings – Revenue authority cannot suddenly awaken after more than a decade and unsettle vested rights – Exercise of power by the Assistant Collector tantamounts to arbitrary and illegal exercise of such power – Relying on Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District v. D. Narsing Rao, (2015) 3 SCC 695; Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya v. State of Gujarat, 2013(2) GLR 1788; Devjibhai Kalabhai Patel v. Collector, Rajkot, SCA No. 21269 of 2017 (confirmed by Division Bench in LPA No. 4963 of 2025) [Paras 15–23].

"Section 79A — Non-Confiscatory — No Power to Vest Land in State or Annul Registered Sale Deed"

Section 79A – Bombay Land Revenue Code – Scope and Jurisdiction – Section 79A empowers the revenue authority only to undertake summary eviction of unauthorised occupants – It does not confer any power of confiscation, forfeiture, or vesting of land in the State Government – It does not empower the revenue authority to annul a registered sale deed or divest a lawful title-holder or bona fide purchaser – Revenue authority, by ordering vesting of land in the State, acted beyond the four corners of the statute and assumed powers not vested in it – Relying on Sharadaben v. State of Gujarat, LPA No. 432 of 2018; State of Gujarat v. Kunjalbhai Lalitbhai Patel, LPA No. 1052 of 2021; Akshat Associates v. Special Secretary (Appeals), SCA No. 7752 of 2016 [Paras 5–6, 22–24].

"Bona Fide Purchaser Under Registered Sale Deed Cannot Be Treated as Unauthorised Occupant"

Section 79A – Unauthorised Occupant – Registered Sale Deed – Petitioners are lawful purchasers of the land under a duly registered sale deed which remains valid, operative and unchallenged – Revenue record nowhere mentions the land to be of new tenure since the first mutation entry in 1965 – Petitioners purchased the land after verifying revenue records which did not reflect new tenure status – No civil proceedings initiated to set aside or cancel the registered sale deed – Unless a registered conveyance is set aside by a competent civil court, title conveyed thereunder remains absolute and enforceable – Revenue authorities cannot unilaterally annul sale deeds; such matters must go to a civil court – Petitioners cannot be dubbed unauthorised occupants so as to attract Section 79A – Assumption of jurisdiction by the Assistant Collector is fundamentally flawed [Paras 10–11, 22–24].

"Government Resolutions — Conversion of New Tenure to Old Tenure After 15 Years of Continuous Cultivation"

Government Resolutions – Tenure Conversion – Government Resolutions dated 11.03.1996, 19.10.2000, 20.12.2006, 04.07.2008 and 17.03.2017 mandate that lands granted as new or restricted tenure, upon continuous agricultural use for 15 years, must be converted to old tenure – Such conversion is an obligatory duty of the revenue authority to be carried out suo motu without requiring any application from the agriculturist – Petitioners had completed more than three decades of continuous cultivation well before 2002 – Revenue authorities were obligated to convert the land to old tenure rather than initiate punitive action [Para 9].

Decision: Writ Application allowed – Impugned order dated 30.05.2012 passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department in Revision Application No. MVV/JMN/SNR 76-2008 quashed and set aside – Rule made absolute.

Temporary Injunction – HUF Property – Burden to Prove Joint Family Nucleus – Plaintiff alleged that disputed property “Shanker Godam” purchased in 1943 in name of Gaya Prasad was from HUF funds – No documentary evidence of existence of HUF in 1943 or of adequate joint family nucleus produced – Estate duty assessment order of 1974 insufficient to establish title – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case of HUF ownership [Paras 27–34, 41–42].

Hindu Law – Presumption of Joint Family Property – Mere existence of joint family does not raise presumption that property standing in name of member is joint – Initial burden lies on person asserting coparcenary character – Only upon proof of adequate nucleus does onus shift – In absence of proof of nucleus in 1943, no presumption attracted [Paras 33–34].

Admission – Effect on Title – Reliance placed on estate duty assessment proceedings wherein share of deceased noted as 20% in HUF – Held: Title cannot pass by mere admission – Assessment order not conclusive proof of ownership – Photocopy inadmissible and information supplied by third party not binding [Paras 37, 42].

Interim Injunction – Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Injury – Plaintiff neither sought declaration of title nor partition – Property already sold to third parties during pendency and construction raised – Held: No prima facie right shown – Balance of convenience not in plaintiff’s favour [Paras 45–46].

Suppression of Material Facts – Earlier Suits – Prior suits (O.S. No. 259 of 1991 and O.S. No. 156 of 2024) involving same property and similar reliefs not disclosed – Discretionary relief of injunction can be declined on ground of concealment [Para 44].

Precedent – Distinguishable Facts – Judgment in Writ-B No. 6108 of 2014 relating to different plot (No. 1866, purchased in 1956) held not applicable to property purchased in 1943 – No identity of subject property established [Paras 35–36, 43].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Discretionary Orders – Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) – Appellate Court can interfere only if order is perverse, arbitrary, capricious or contrary to settled principles – If view taken by trial court is a possible view on material, interference not warranted – No perversity found [Paras 38–40, 47].

Decision: Appeal dismissed at admission stage – Order dated 29.08.2025 rejecting injunction applications 6-C2 and 31-C2 affirmed – Trial court directed to decide suit preferably within six months – Observations confined to disposal of appeal [Paras 48–50].

Service Law – Recruitment – Change of Eligibility Criteria Midway – Advertisement prescribed 10+2 with Diploma in Knitting from ITI – During selection, Board issued clarification extending eligibility to Diploma in Knitting/Textile from recognized Institution/ITI – Selected candidates possessed qualifications like Diploma in Handloom Technology and Textile Technology (Spinning) not borne out from advertisement or draft Recruitment Rules – Held: Board clandestinely added qualification not notified to candidates – Change of criteria midway violative of Articles 14 and 16 – Selection vitiated ab initio [Paras 27-31, 34-35].

Recruitment – Draft Recruitment Rules – Legal Sanctity – Selection sought to be justified on basis of un-notified draft Rules – Even draft Rules did not include certain qualifications considered for selection – Held: Un-notified draft Recruitment Rules cannot override advertisement – Selection dehors notified criteria unsustainable [Paras 25, 29, 31].

Estoppel by Participation – Unsuccessful Candidate Challenging Selection – Respondent participated in interview but challenged selection after result – Where selection process suffers from glaring illegality and undisclosed criteria – Held: Doctrine of estoppel by participation not applicable – Candidate cannot be estopped from challenging unconstitutional and arbitrary process [Paras 30, 32-33].

Natural Justice – Service of Notice – Plea of being condemned unheard – Notices issued through registered post – Deemed service under Section 27 of General Clauses Act – Held: In absence of proof of wrong address or non-issuance, service deemed valid – Plea rejected [Paras 14-17].

Judicial Review – Scope – Tribunal quashed select and wait list for post of Knitting Instructor – High Court found no perversity or illegality in Tribunal’s reasoning – Where illegality in process is widespread and affects entire selection, Court need not segregate beneficiaries – Matter left to competent authority for remedial steps [Paras 35-37].

Equality in Public Employment – Non-Arbitrariness – Inclusion of ineligible candidates and deviation from notified criteria renders selection arbitrary – Selection failing test of non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16 cannot be sustained [Paras 29, 35].

Decision: Impugned Order dated 16.11.2021 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench in TA No. 61/6718/2020 upheld – Select list and wait list for post of Knitting Instructor, Divisional Cadre Jammu quashed – Both Writ Petitions dismissed – Interim directions vacated – Matter left to competent authority to take steps in accordance with law.

Bail – Rape on False Promise of Marriage – Section 376 IPC and Section 69 BNS – Long-standing relationship between parties since 2018 – Allegations that physical relations were established on repeated assurances of marriage and representations that kundalis had matched – Subsequent refusal to marry on ground of non-matching of kundalis – Earlier complaint withdrawn on assurance of marriage – Prima facie material including WhatsApp chats showing assurances such as “kal hi shaadi kar rahe hain hum” – Held: At bail stage, material indicates repeated assurances despite alleged family insistence on kundali matching – Conduct not a mere relationship turning sour but prima facie inducement by deceit attracting Section 69 BNS – Regular bail declined as chargesheet yet to be filed and allegations serious in nature [Paras 9–15].

Consent – Distinction between Breach of Promise and False Assurance from Inception – Courts must distinguish between genuine promise subsequently unfulfilled and false promise made to secure consent – Criminal law not attracted merely because relationship fails – However, where material shows assurances of no impediment and horoscope matching resolved, followed by refusal on same ground, prima facie case of deceit made out – Question of genuineness of promise to be examined at trial – At bail stage, existence of prima facie material sufficient to decline relief [Paras 13–14].

Bail Principles – Stage of Investigation – Serious allegations of sexual exploitation and threats to leak photographs – Mobile phone seized and sent to FSL – Chargesheet yet to be filed – At stage of ongoing investigation, Court required only to assess prima facie case and not conduct mini trial – Considering nature of accusations and supporting material, no ground for grant of regular bail made out [Paras 4, 14–15].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Observations confined to adjudication of bail and not to influence merits of trial [Paras 16–17].

Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability – Challenge to Government programme involving expenditure of ₹20 Crores – Allegation of misuse of public funds and violation of Rules of Business – Held: Petitioners, as citizens raising issue of public finance and constitutional compliance, have locus – Court can examine policy decisions where arbitrariness, illegality or violation of constitutional/statutory provisions alleged [Paras 21–22].

Executive Action – Article 166(3) – Rules of Business – Mandatory Compliance – Programme involving collection of development data and welfare study placed under Information & Public Relations Department under head “Special PR Campaign” – Rules of Business allocate planning, evaluation and development studies to Planning and Economic Affairs Department / Programme Implementation, Evaluation and Monitoring Department – Held: Allocation contrary to Rules of Business – Compliance with Rules framed under Article 166(3), especially where public finance involved, is mandatory – Cabinet approval or post facto justification cannot cure inherent defect [Paras 31–37].

Public Finance – Constitutional Scheme – Articles 202 to 207 – Withdrawal from Consolidated Fund – No money can be withdrawn except under appropriation made by law – Supplementary/Additional grants require legislative procedure under Article 205 – Budget Manual mandates that expenditure beyond scope of sanctioned grant cannot be incurred without legislative approval – Held: Allocation and utilisation of ₹20 Crores under “Special PR Campaign” head, beyond sanctioned scope and in violation of Rules of Business, unsustainable [Paras 40–42, 46].

Colourable Exercise of Power – Allocation of Funds – Funds earmarked for “Special PR Campaign” utilised for programme essentially involving development planning and evaluation – Held: Allocation of ₹20 Crores to I&PR Department for functions squarely falling under other Departments amounts to colourable exercise of executive power [Paras 32–33, 46].

Use of Social Volunteer Force Portal – Deviation from Original Purpose – Portal created in 2020 for disaster management and local crises – Used for implementation of development survey programme without adequate clarification or wide publicity – Alleged prior communication by political party before issuance of Government Order lends credence to apprehension of oblique motive – Held: Government failed to satisfactorily explain deviation and transparency concerns [Paras 38–39, 45, 51].

Judicial Review – Limits in Policy Matters – Though Courts ordinarily refrain from interfering in economic and policy decisions, they are duty-bound to intervene where public funds are utilised de hors financial rules and in violation of constitutional framework – Court not examining wisdom of programme but legality of expenditure and adherence to Rules [Paras 21, 52].

Financial Discipline – Fiscal Norms – Government expected to adhere scrupulously to Rules of Business, Budget Manual and constitutional provisions – Deviation in allocation and utilisation of public funds invites judicial scrutiny [Paras 43–44].

Decision: Respondents directed to keep in abeyance all steps pursuant to Exhibit P1 Government Order dated 10.10.2025 – Exhibit P1 set aside to the extent it authorises utilisation of ₹20 Crores under head “2220-01-001-96 – Special PR Campaign” by Information and Public Relations Department – Exhibits R1(a) and R1(b) issued in furtherance thereof also set aside – Writ Petitions (PIL) allowed [Para 54].

Civil Law – Violation of Status Quo Order – Order 39 Rule 2A CPC – Applicants alleged that respondent raised construction over disputed property despite interim order directing parties to maintain status quo – High Court earlier directed trial court to conduct enquiry regarding alleged violation – Trial Court failed to conduct enquiry and merely obtained spot inspection report from Executive Engineer, PWD – Held: Direction of High Court requiring enquiry with evidence not complied with – Matter required fresh enquiry by competent court [Paras 2-5, 8].

Civil Procedure – Enquiry into Breach of Injunction – Requirement of Recording Evidence – Trial Court forwarded spot inspection report without examining witnesses or hearing parties – Such approach contrary to directions of High Court – Proper enquiry requires recording of evidence and determination whether injunction order was breached [Para 5].

Judicial Administration – Negligence of Judicial Officer – Trial Judge kept matter pending for long period and failed to comply with repeated directions of High Court – Explanation tendered by trial Judge found unsatisfactory – Matter directed to be placed before Chief Justice through Registrar General for considering disciplinary action against concerned officer [Paras 5-7].

Judicial Discipline – Compliance of High Court Directions – Trial Court acted in disregard of directions by not conducting enquiry and by forwarding report directly to High Court without routing through Principal District Judge – Such conduct deprecated and explanation sought through Principal District & Sessions Judge [Paras 4, 7].

Procedure – Fresh Enquiry Ordered – Since earlier enquiry was not conducted in accordance with High Court directions, Principal District and Sessions Judge directed to assign enquiry to another Civil Judge – Enquiry to be completed within four months with liberty to appoint Local Commissioner for spot inspection in presence of parties [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Explanation of trial Judge found unsatisfactory – Matter referred to Registrar General to be placed before Hon’ble Chief Justice for consideration of disciplinary action – Principal District & Sessions Judge directed to assign enquiry to another Civil Judge – Fresh enquiry to be completed within four months – Parties directed to appear before Principal District & Sessions Judge on 17/03/2026.

Education Law – RTE Act, 2009 – Teacher Redeployment – Validity of G.O. dated 14.11.2025 – Government Order issued to maintain prescribed pupil–teacher ratio under Section 25 of the 2009 Act – Challenge on grounds of arbitrariness, mid-session transfer and absence of procedure – Held: G.O. is supplemental and curative in nature, issued to ensure strict statutory compliance and cannot be termed arbitrary or ultra vires – Policy decision in furtherance of Article 21-A – Valid [Paras 71–79, 103–109, 132].

Service Law – Transfer – Incidence of Service – Scope of Judicial Review – Transfer within same district pursuant to policy for rationalization – No mala fides or statutory violation established – Courts do not sit in appeal over administrative transfers – Interference confined to cases of mala fide, arbitrariness or breach of statutory rules – Petitioners failed to demonstrate such infirmity – Limited judicial restraint reiterated [Paras 93–100, 124, 136–137].

RTE Act – Section 25 – Pupil-Teacher Ratio – Continuing Obligation – Rule 21 of 2011 Rules provides annual review before July – Not an absolute embargo on corrective measures thereafter – State retains power to issue executive instructions in November to address emergent shortages – Obligation to maintain PTR is continuing and overrides timing objection [Paras 82, 88–90].

Administrative Law – Arbitrariness – Procedural Compliance – Though G.O. not arbitrary per se, implementation must be data-driven and transparent – Non-preparation of consolidated verified list of surplus/deficit schools or improper inclusion of Shiksha Mitras contrary to law may render action arbitrary – Issue relates to improper implementation, not absence of power – Individual grievances to be examined by District Level Committee [Paras 112–115, 138–142].

Policy Decisions – Judicial Restraint – Education Policy – Court reiterates that in matters affecting policy and administrative exigencies, judicial review is limited to legality of decision-making process – Courts cannot substitute executive wisdom unless action is unconstitutional, mala fide or contrary to statute – Transfers to achieve statutory mandate of RTE Act fall within executive domain [Paras 122–129].

Natural Justice – Mass Adjustment – Opportunity of Representation – Though transfer is incidence of service, fairness requires affected teachers be permitted to submit objections where large-scale rationalization undertaken – Directions issued to file individual representations before District Level Committee – Speaking orders to be passed [Paras 118–121, 145].

Data Verification – UDISE Portal – Necessity of Accurate Institutional Data – Apparent non-verification of sanctioned strength and working strength necessitates calibrated judicial intervention – Authorities directed to verify and update authentic data and ensure redeployment strictly as per RTE Act [Paras 138, 143–147].

Directions:

(i) Government Order dated 14.11.2025 upheld – Challenge rejected

(ii) Petitioners to submit separate representations within one week before District Level Committee

(iii) Committee to decide objections by reasoned and speaking orders within one month

(iv) Status quo to be maintained for one month or till decision, whichever earlier

(v) Authorities to verify and update UDISE data and ensure maintenance of prescribed pupil–teacher ratio in accordance with the RTE Act, 2009

(vi) Writ petitions disposed of with observations and directions [Paras 145–148].

Rape – Consent on Promise of Marriage – Discharge – Prosecutrix alleged physical relations on false assurance of marriage – Record revealed long-standing relationship of two years – Single incident alleged – Delay in complaint and FIR – No material indicating force, coercion or false inducement from inception – Held: No prima facie material to show consent was vitiated under Section 90 IPC – Trial Court rightly discharged accused under Section 376 IPC [Paras 12-17].

Section 90 IPC – Misconception of Fact – Scope – For consent to be vitiated on ground of false promise of marriage, prosecution must prima facie show that promise was false at inception and intended solely to obtain consent – In present case, parties were in consensual relationship and prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied accused – No grave suspicion of deception or fraudulent inducement made out [Paras 15-17].

Discharge – Standard under Sections 227/228 Cr.P.C. – Court at stage of charge to assess whether material gives rise to “grave suspicion” and not merely suspicion – Where two views possible and evidence gives rise only to suspicion, discharge justified – Trial Court cannot conduct mini-trial but must evaluate whether essential ingredients of offence are disclosed – Impugned order consistent with principles laid down in Prafulla Kumar Samal [Paras 6, 18].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – Under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., interference warranted only in case of patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error – Where Trial Court’s view is plausible and based on record, High Court not to substitute its own view – No glaring perversity or illegality found in discharge order [Paras 19-20].

Delay and Conduct – Relevance at Stage of Charge – Prosecutrix lodged complaint nearly one month after alleged incident and FIR registered thereafter – No allegation of repeated acts – Conduct of parties, including voluntary travel and continued communication, relevant in assessing existence of grave suspicion at threshold stage [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Revision petitions dismissed – Order dated 31.05.2017 discharging respondent from offence under Section 376 IPC upheld – No interference warranted in revisional jurisdiction.

Criminal Law – Defamation – Section 199 Cr.P.C. – “Person aggrieved” – Complaint filed by Bharatiya Janata Party represented by State Secretary – Authorization issued by President of State Unit – No material to show authorization by National Party – Held, complaint not instituted by competent person representing alleged aggrieved entity – Proceedings vitiated [Paras 20-21].

Defamation of Political Party – Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC – Imputation against identifiable body required – Advertisement referred to constitutional functionaries and Government schemes – No specific imputation against political party as identifiable collection of persons – Party cannot be treated as “person aggrieved” on vague or inferential allegations – Complaint not maintainable [Paras 28-31].

Issuance of Process – Requirement of Prima Facie Material – Advertisement contained only photograph of accused No.4 – No material showing publication at his instance or requisite mens rea under Section 499 IPC – Essential ingredient of intention to harm not established – Mere presence of photograph insufficient to fasten criminal liability [Paras 22-25, 33].

Electronic Evidence – Tweet Allegedly Forwarding Advertisement – Not marked as exhibit – No Section 65B certificate produced – Trial Court while issuing process relied only on Ex.C1 to C14 which did not include tweet – Held, absence of tweet on record at stage of cognizance renders material insufficient to connect accused No.4 – Subsequent production cannot cure defect [Paras 26-27, 34].

Section 202 Cr.P.C. – Mandatory Enquiry – Accused residing outside territorial jurisdiction of Magistrate – No enquiry conducted before issuance of summons – Non-compliance prejudicial and reflects casual approach – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Para 32].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Where continuance of proceedings amounts to abuse of process – High Court justified in quashing complaint insofar as accused No.4 concerned [Para 35].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Proceedings in C.C. No.7399/2024 (P.C.R. No.3878/2023) set aside insofar as petitioner/accused No.4 – Continuance of proceedings held to be abuse of process of law.