Chandigarh Housing Board Allotment – Transfer before expiry of 10 years and without conveyance deed – Invalid – Will unproved – Parties held entitled as co-heirs – Appeals partly allowed and disposed of [Paras 16–27].

Property Dispute – Allotment under Chandigarh Housing Board – Clause 12 – Transfer of house to daughter prior to completion of 10-year period or execution of conveyance deed – Transfer invalid – Relaxation under Regulation 50 requires written reasons, absent in this case – Held: Transfer in favour of respondent Pushpa Devi contrary to allotment conditions – Possession claim unsustainable [Paras 16–19].

Will – Proof and Effect – Registered Will dated 14.07.1999 relied upon by Pushpa Devi not produced in original – Beneficiary failed to depose fully or prove due execution – Earlier judgments in collateral litigation held Will unproved – Held: No benefit can accrue from unproved Will – Claim of sole ownership by Pushpa Devi rejected [Paras 20–24].

Ownership Rights – Chandigarh Housing Board – In absence of conveyance deed, allottee remains holder of allotment rights – On death of allottee Kaushalya Devi, all legal heirs including appellant and respondent entitled equally – Neither party can claim exclusive ownership – Directions issued to have property transferred in equal shares as per rules [Para 26].

Scope of Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Substantial question of law arises where lower appellate court’s findings based on misinterpretation of allotment conditions – High Court interferes, restores trial court’s dismissal of Pushpa Devi’s suit while clarifying parties’ joint entitlement [Paras 15–19, 25–27].

Decision – RSA No.1022/2012 filed by Bhushan Sehgal allowed – Suit of Pushpa Devi for possession and mesne profits dismissed – RSA No.1583/2012 partly allowed – Bhushan Sehgal not declared sole owner, but both parties held entitled to equal shares as heirs – Appeals disposed of accordingly [Paras 25–27].

Warrant of Arrest – BNSS, 2023 – Calcutta HC upholds Magistrate’s order showing petitioner as absconder in municipal forgery case despite his compliance with Section 179 BNSS notice; revision dismissed.

Criminal Procedure – Warrant of Arrest – BNSS, 2023 – Magistrate’s Order – Petitioner shown as absconder in charge-sheet despite compliance with Section 179 BNSS notice – Held: compliance with notice does not bar Magistrate from issuing warrant if IO records non-availability during search – No ground to interfere in revisional jurisdiction – Petition dismissed [Paras 5-11].

Forgery Allegations – Building Plan Sanction – Inspection Book Records – Allegations of forged municipal inspection records to obtain 5-storied building plan where only 3 permitted – Charge-sheet filed against petitioner/developers – Whether forgery committed to be tested in trial – Revisional Court will not evaluate merits at pre-trial stage [Paras 2-3, 10].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 442 BNSS – High Court’s power exceptional and sparing – Interference only in case of manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice – No error found in Magistrate’s order; casual handwriting lapse in prior order not sufficient for intervention [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Magistrate’s order dated 29.07.2025 issuing warrant of arrest sustained – Revision petition dismissed; trial to proceed in accordance with law [Paras 11-12].

Judicial Service Recruitment – Clause 8.4 prescribing minimum 40% in each paper and 50% aggregate upheld – Administrative instructions can supplement Rules when silent – Petition dismissed [Paras 12-20].

Scope of Rules – Rules of 2007 for Punjab & Haryana provide for written test (750 marks) and viva voce (250 marks) but are silent on qualifying marks – Notifications added Clause 8.4 requiring 40% in each paper and 50% aggregate – Held: not inconsistent but supplemental to statutory scheme [Paras 10-12].

Power of High Court – Following K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 395 – High Court can prescribe benchmarks in absence of express prohibition – Ensures selection of best available talent for judiciary [Paras 13, 18].

Supreme Court Precedent – Applied Dr. Kavita Kamboj v. Punjab & Haryana High Court, (2024) 7 SCC 103 – When Rules silent, administrative instructions permissible to fill gaps – Minimum marks criteria legally sustainable [Paras 14, 17-18].

Estoppel – Petitioner had earlier challenged identical notifications in W.P. (C) 501/2024 before Supreme Court—dismissed on 18.10.2024 without liberty—thus barred from reagitating same cause [Paras 15-16].

Decision – No arbitrariness in Clause 8.4—petition dismissed—miscellaneous applications also disposed [Paras 19-21].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1357 days in filing Second Appeal – Applicant Panchayat challenged Appellate Court decree of 2018 only after execution proceedings were initiated in 2023 – Applicant originally exonerated by Trial Court – Appellate Court imposed monetary liability despite no appeal by plaintiff – Held: Applicant failed to offer sufficient cause for long delay – Knowledge of decree established – Delay not bona fide – Gross negligence and indolent conduct disentitles applicant from discretionary relief under Section 5 of the Limitation Act [Paras 4, 9, 14–20, 32.1–33]

Civil Procedure – Merger of Decree – Though Trial Court dismissed suit against defendant no. 1, Appellate Court held otherwise – Decree of Appellate Court prevails – Defendant No.1 cannot avoid liability on ground of original exoneration once appellate decree imposed payment obligations – Failure to appeal in time makes decree binding [Paras 16–17]

Execution – Attachment of Property – Execution application initiated due to non-compliance with money decree – Order of attachment passed against immovable property of defendant no. 1 – Stay granted conditionally by High Court in writ petition – Subsequent delay application in appeal not a valid explanation [Paras 8, 18]

Delay – State Instrumentality – No Separate Standard – Delay by Panchayat not treated more leniently – Court reiterated that State authorities must act diligently – Lethargy, negligence, or bureaucratic delay cannot be treated as sufficient cause – State machinery must fix accountability to prevent delay [Paras 12.2, 25–26, 30]

Discretionary Power – Not Absolute – High Court reiterated that condonation of delay is a discretionary power – Cannot be invoked in absence of bona fide explanation – Length of delay, conduct of parties, and public interest must be weighed – Absence of due diligence fatal even if applicant claims good case on merits [Paras 22–23, 27–29]

Precedents Cited – Supreme Court decisions including Sheo Raj Singh, Binod Pathak, Ramkumar Choudhary, Rajneesh Kumar, Basawaraj, and Shivamma examined – Held: None support condonation in facts of present case – Explanation found insufficient, fabricated, or vague – Court must not substitute merits for diligence [Paras 21–24, 27–32]

Decision: Application dismissed – Delay of 1357 days in filing Second Appeal not condoned – Registry directed to refuse registration of appeal – Rs. 10,000 cost deposited by applicant to be disbursed to plaintiff through RTGS/NEFT [Paras 33–35]

Commercial tenancy – Section 12A CCA – Urgent interim relief & prior exemption order – O.VII R.11 refusal and interim injunction upheld – Petition dismissed [Paras 2–6, 7–8].

Commercial Courts Act, s.12A – Urgency & exemption – Where plaintiff sought urgent interim relief and the trial court had already granted a specific exemption from pre-institution mediation (order dated 07.09.2024), non-invocation of PIM did not abrogate s.12A – Exemption order, never challenged, attained finality; may be relied upon while rejecting O.VII R.11 plea [Paras 2, 4, 6].

Pleadings – Rejection of plaint under O.VII R.11 – Assessment confined to averments in the plaint; defence pleas (e.g., alleged fit-out extension/payment till July 2024) irrelevant at R.11 stage – Trial court correct in refusing to traverse defence material while deciding R.11 [Para 7].

Interim Injunction – Restraining creation of third-party interests – In a possession/arrears suit, evidence of substantial arrears (~₹60 lakh across floors), non-payment despite O.XV-A/O.XXXIX R.10 orders, and ongoing execution (bailiff appointed for mezzanine; ground floor execution continuing) establish a real, not illusory, urgency and justify ad-interim restraint to prevent alienation/defeat of decree [Paras 4–5].

Section 12A CCA – “Real urgency” – Seeking interim injunction coupled with facts indicating imminent risk (arrears, execution steps, apprehended alienation) constitutes genuine urgency; s.12A exemption properly invoked and cannot be re-litigated via O.VII R.11 once exemption order stands unassailed [Paras 3–6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – No infirmity – Concurrent findings on urgency, finality of exemption order, and proper R.11 approach disclose no perversity; Art. 227 petition dismissed with upholding of impugned interlocutory orders [Para 8].

Decision: Held – Trial court order upheld; application under O.VII R.11 rightly dismissed in view of prior, unchallenged s.12A exemption and the limited R.11 inquiry; interim injunction restraining creation of third-party interests justified on facts – Petition and pending applications dismissed [Paras 6–8].

Divorce Petition – Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Amendment sought after framing of issues – Not barred if facts arose subsequently or due diligence shown – No new cause of action; only elaboration of cruelty ground – Amendment rightly allowed – Petition dismissed [Paras 12-19].

Amendment of Pleadings – Trial commencement – Mere framing of issues not commencement of trial – Trial begins when evidence starts – Amendment permissible if sought before evidence or if new facts arise subsequently – SC precedents applied [Paras 12-13].

Hindu Marriage Act – Multiple grounds of divorce – No bar to include additional grounds by amendment – Filing successive petitions permissible; hence, taking additional ground in same petition avoids multiplicity – Res judicata does not apply between separate grounds under s.13 HMA [Para 17].

Cruelty – Allegations of immoral conduct with colleague – Amendment introducing subsequent incidents of misconduct and threats – Considered elaboration of cruelty already pleaded, not new cause of action – Properly allowed [Paras 15, 18].

Decision – Family Court order allowing amendment upheld – Petition dismissed; Family Court directed to conclude divorce proceedings expeditiously as per s.21-B HMA [Paras 19-20].

Land Acquisition – Section 24(2) of 2013 Act – Compensation Enhancement – National Highways Act – Notification under Section 3A issued for acquisition of land for widening of NH-44 – Competent Authority awarded compensation @ ₹1220.88 per sq.m. – Petitioner sought higher compensation citing sale deeds of adjacent lands – Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) rejected claim relying on outdated land value and held ₹1220.88 sufficient – Writ Petition filed challenging arbitrator’s award – Held: Arbitrator failed to consider relevant, proximate sale exemplars and committed perversity in rejecting valid comparative sale deeds – Interference under Article 226 justified [Paras 5–9]

Land Valuation – Comparable Sale Deeds – Petitioner produced registered sale deed of land (3.5 km away) sold for ₹3,716.88 per sq.m. – Arbitrator held land not proximate and refused reliance – Court held land situated along same highway stretch and relevant to determine market value – Nearby sales with similar characteristics should not have been ignored – Arbitrator failed to appreciate essential principles for market value determination [Paras 7–8]

Arbitration under NH Act – Section 3G(5) – Scope of Judicial Review – Award of Arbitrator challenged under Article 226 – Held: Though arbitrator’s decision generally not interfered with under Article 226, writ jurisdiction can be exercised when award is perverse, unreasonable or against settled legal principles – In this case, Arbitrator ignored cogent sale evidence and relied on stale collector rate – Interference warranted [Paras 6–9]

Principles – Market Value Determination – Reliance on Collector Rates deprecated – Reiterated that collector rates do not reflect actual market value – Comparable sale method is preferred – Time proximity, location, similarity of land, and size of transaction are key factors – Failure to consider these vitiates award [Para 8]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Land acquisition deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – Possession and compensation requirements not satisfied – Respondents restrained from interfering with petitioner’s possession – Liberty granted to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law if required.

Criminal Procedure – Section 528 BNSS – FIR No. 281/2007 (IPC 323/341/506/34) – Police cancellation prepared in 2007/2009 but not filed – Final report filed and accepted on 22.08.2025 post-petition – Court deprecates 15-year delay; imposes ₹1,00,000 costs (₹25,000 to petitioner; ₹75,000 to Punjab SLSA-DRF); directions for departmental action, compliance affidavit by DGP within 90 days – Petition disposed as grievance redressed [Paras 3-8].

Administrative Lapse – Investigative Delay – Scope of Discretion – While no rigid statutory time-limit for filing final report, discretion must be reasonable and diligent – 15-year delay held antithetical to rule of law; non-application of mind and lack of diligence amount to abdication of statutory/constitutional duty – Court quotes classic exposition of “discretion” (Lord Halsbury) – Institutional accountability emphasized [Paras 5-7].

BNSS, 2023 – Section 528 – Maintainability and Relief – Direction sought to compel presentation of cancellation/status report regarding compromised FIR – State’s affidavit acknowledges missing file; corrective circular No. 30/2025 issued; show cause to then Dy.SP – Since final report filed and accepted on 22.08.2025, substantive grievance stood redressed – Petition disposed with costs and systemic directions [Paras 4, 7-8].

Costs and Deterrence – State Liability and Recovery – ₹1,00,000 costs imposed on State (₹25,000 to petitioner; ₹75,000 to Punjab State Legal Services Authority – Disaster Relief Fund) – Liberty to recover from salaries of delinquent officials per law – Departmental proceedings to be pursued in right earnest and concluded expeditiously; non-compliance may invite punitive consequences [Para 8].

Police Administration – Circular Compliance – DGP’s Circular No. 30 of 15.09.2025 regarding timely preparation, submission, and follow-up of cancellation/untraced reports to be implemented in letter and spirit – Not a paper directive; must be effectuated to achieve intended purpose; DGP to file compliance affidavit with Registrar General within 90 days [Paras 4, 8].

Decision – Final report in FIR accepted on 22.08.2025; petition disposed as redressed; costs of ₹1,00,000 imposed with directions on recovery, departmental action, and compliance affidavit by DGP within 90 days [Para 8].

Bail – NDPS Act – Recovery of 1.056 kg Charas – Section 37 NDPS – Bail Denied – The petitioner sought regular bail, contending he was merely a passenger in the car from which 1.056 kg of charas was recovered and had no knowledge of contraband – Prosecution opposed bail relying on Section 37, citing recovery of commercial quantity, petitioner’s links with co-accused through CDRs, and conscious possession – Held: Section 37 imposes twin conditions; court must be satisfied that accused is not guilty and not likely to reoffend – Recovery from vehicle, petitioner’s association with co-accused, and precedents (Madan Lal v. State of H.P., 2003) show prima facie conscious possession – No material to satisfy twin conditions – Bail refused [Paras 10–17].

Interpretation of Section 37 NDPS – “Reasonable Grounds” – Court reiterated that “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds; requires credible, plausible grounds to believe accused is not guilty – Bail under NDPS Act not to be granted casually; societal interest in curbing drug menace overrides liberal bail principles [Paras 13–16].

Bail Jurisprudence – Supreme Court Precedents – Referred to Pinki v. State of U.P. (2025), State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020), UOI v. Niyazuddin (2018), Mohd. Nawaz Khan (2021), and Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal (2022) – Held: liberal approach not permissible in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity; stringent satisfaction required for bail [Paras 8–16].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Bail denied – Petitioner failed to satisfy twin conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act [Para 19].