Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegation of Civil Dispute – Pendency of Civil Suits – Held: Mere availability or pendency of civil remedy does not bar criminal investigation where allegations disclose prima facie cognizable offences [Paras 9–11].

Forgery and Impersonation – Large Scale Property Fraud – Detailed complaint alleging impersonation of landowner, fabrication of sale deeds, gift deeds, GPA, JDA, forged Will and misappropriation of compensation – Allegations not peripheral but central to criminal conspiracy – Investigation cannot be interdicted at threshold [Paras 3–8, 12–13].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Section 528 BNSS, 2023 – Scope and Limitations – Court not to assess truth or otherwise of allegations at investigation stage – Interference permissible only in rare cases where no offence is disclosed – Present case discloses serious cognizable offences warranting full investigation [Paras 10–11, 15].

Civil and Criminal Remedies – Coexistence – Same set of facts may give rise to civil as well as criminal liability – Criminal law not eclipsed merely because civil suits for cancellation of documents are pending – Principle reiterated through Supreme Court precedents [Paras 9–11].

Impersonation Before Public Authorities – Abuse of Judicial and Registration Process – Allegations of forged appearances before Sub-Registrar, fraudulent mutation entries, false court proceedings and Letters of Administration – Matters requiring thorough investigation by police [Paras 12–13].

Reliance on Precedents – Distinguishing Case Law – Judgment relied upon by petitioner held inapplicable on facts – Present case saturated with allegations of fraud, impersonation and forgery unlike mere contractual or civil disputes [Paras 14].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Interim order vacated – Investigation in Crime No.446 of 2025 to proceed in accordance with law – I.A. No.1 of 2026 disposed of [Para 15].

Tenancy Law – MTAL Act – Section 43 – Prohibited transfer – Jurisdictional fact of “transfer” – Agricultural land purchased by tenants under Section 32G – Unregistered Agreement for Sale executed with express condition of prior State permission – No permission obtained – Held: In absence of sanction and completion of sale, no transfer in law occurred – Section 43 not attracted [Paras 19–21, 30–33].

Section 84C, MTAL Act – Vesting in State – Preconditions – Proceedings under Section 84C can be invoked only when there is a transfer or acquisition invalid under the Act – Where Agreement for Sale itself contemplated State permission as condition precedent and such permission was never obtained, there was no transfer to declare invalid – Vesting of land in State and subsequent proclamation unsustainable [Paras 21–22, 27–33].

Agreement for Sale – Possession – Section 53A, Transfer of Property Act – Mere delivery of possession under an unregistered agreement does not amount to transfer for purposes of Section 43 MTAL Act – Compliance with tenancy law is integral to validity of transfer – Protection under Section 53A cannot override statutory prohibition [Paras 13–14, 30–33].

Equity and Statutory Purpose – Abuse of protective provisions – Petitioners sought nullification of transaction after 18 years to benefit from statutory vesting and re-allotment in their own favour – Section 43 and Section 84C intended to protect tenant-turned-owner from exploitation, not to aid transferee in perfecting title through forfeiture – Invocation of Section 84C by transferee held contrary to scheme of Act [Paras 24–29, 31].

Revenue Tribunal – Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 76, MTAL Act – Tribunal examined whether jurisdictional facts for invoking Section 84C existed – Finding that no transfer occurred is a reasonable and plausible view – No re-appreciation of evidence warranting interference under Article 226 [Paras 15, 27, 32–33].

Delay – Conduct of Parties – Writ Jurisdiction – Petitioners’ predecessor invoked Section 84C after nearly 18 years of Agreement for Sale – Conduct disentitled petitioners from discretionary relief under Article 226 – Writ Court not bound to interfere merely because an alternative view is possible [Paras 24–29, 33].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Order of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 13.01.2020 upheld – No transfer proved under Section 43 – Proceedings under Section 84C held untenable – Rule discharged.

Civil Law – Amendment of Plaint – Withdrawal or Explanation of Admission – Permissibility – Plaintiffs originally pleaded that predecessor-in-title Udharani Dasi was absolute owner of suit property – By amendment sought to plead that Udharani had only limited interest under prevailing law and lacked authority to alienate property between 1911–1933 – Defendants contended amendment impermissible as it withdraws admission and changes nature of suit – Held: Admission does not create title and is not conclusive – Admission may be explained or clarified if facts justify – Amendment explaining legal nature of predecessor’s title not mutually destructive of original pleading [Paras 13, 18–19, 22].

Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Amendment After Framing of Issues – Due Diligence – Application for amendment filed after framing of issues and at stage of evidence – Objection that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 attracted – Held: Mere delay not a ground to refuse amendment – Dominant test is whether amendment is necessary to decide real controversy between parties – Belated amendment can be allowed if prejudice can be compensated by costs or opportunity to file additional written statement [Paras 20–21].

Cause of Action – Nature and Character of Suit – No Fundamental Change – Original suit for declaration of joint ownership and partition – Proposed amendment did not seek additional relief nor introduce a new cause of action – Core controversy remained determination of title and succession – Held: Amendment neither changes nature nor character of suit nor substitutes a new and inconsistent case [Paras 17–19, 21, 23].

Amendment of Pleadings – Real Controversy Test – Court must not examine correctness or falsity of amended plea at amendment stage – Real controversy test to be applied – Amendment necessary to adjudicate whether Udharani had transferable title under law prevailing at relevant time – Held: Trial court rightly allowed amendment to enable complete and effective adjudication [Paras 16–18].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – Order allowing amendment discretionary and procedural – No perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error found – Held: High Court will not interfere under Article 227 merely because another view is possible [Paras 24–25].

Decision: Civil Revisional Application dismissed – Order dated 20.02.2024 allowing amendment of plaint affirmed – No interference warranted under Article 227 – No order as to costs.

Arbitration – Section 34 – Inordinate Delay in Pronouncement of Award – Effect on Validity – Arbitral award reserved on 06.03.2021 and pronounced on 06.03.2023 – Delay of about two years after reserving the award – Held: Delay by itself is not a ground to set aside an award, but where such delay is unexplained and adversely reflects on the findings, the award stands vitiated as being in conflict with public policy of India and suffering from patent illegality [Paras 6–7, 13, 18].

Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Arbitration Clause Restricting Disputes – Arbitration clause permitted reference only where liability was admitted and dispute related solely to quantum – Insurer disputed existence of arbitral dispute after full and final settlement – Tribunal decided only the voluntariness of settlement but failed to adequately address whether an arbitrable dispute survived in view of the restrictive clause – Held: Issue went to the root of jurisdiction and was adversely impacted due to delay in pronouncement [Paras 8–12, 18–19].

Delay and Impact on Consideration of Arguments – Human Memory and Fairness – Long gap between conclusion of arguments and pronouncement of award shakes confidence of parties as to whether submissions were effectively weighed – Written submissions cannot substitute oral arguments – Held: Justice must not only be done but must appear to have been done – Delay created avoidable speculation and suspicion [Paras 13–15].

COVID-19 as Justification for Delay – Rejection – Tribunal attributed delay to COVID-19 till last quarter of 2022 – Supreme Court orders excluded period only till 28.02.2022 – Even after exclusion, delay of nearly one year remained unexplained – Reason that Tribunal members could not meet after reserving award indicated lack of deliberation – Held: Explanation for delay not acceptable [Paras 16–17].

Section 29A – Legislative Intent of Speedy Arbitration – Though Section 29A not applicable to pending proceedings, it crystallises legislative intent of expeditious resolution – Arbitration proceedings spanning nearly a decade with two-year delay in pronouncement defeated the object of arbitration [Paras 14–15].

Public Policy of India – Patent Illegality – Inordinate and unexplained delay affecting jurisdictional findings brings award within ambit of Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and Section 34(2A) – Award held patently illegal and unsustainable [Paras 6, 18].

Decision: Petition allowed – Arbitral award dated 06.03.2023 set aside – Court refrained from examining merits of claims as jurisdictional issue itself vitiated by delay – All pending applications disposed of.

Land Acquisition – Mega Market by APMC – Challenge by Public Charitable Trust – Multiple acquisition notifications relating to two sets of lands (Subject ‘A’ and Subject ‘B’) – Common dismissal of writ petitions by Single Judge upheld – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1, 16, 66].

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 6 Proviso (ii) – Limitation of one year for final notification – Computation of period – Date of publication in Village Chavadi relevant – Period during which acquisition proceedings stayed by Court to be excluded – Final notification within time – No violation of Section 6 in respect of Subject ‘A’ property [Paras 34–37].

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11A – Alleged lapse for non-passing of award within two years – Effect of interim stay orders – Period of stay to be excluded – Draft award and subsequent award not invalid – No lapse of acquisition proceedings [Paras 38–44].

Urgency Clause – Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act – Dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A – Subjective satisfaction of Government – Proposal by APMC, deliberations in departmental and Single Window Committee meetings – Adequate application of mind – No mala fides or non-application of mind established – Invocation of urgency upheld [Paras 45–48].

Urgency Acquisition – Section 17(3A) – Requirement of tender/payment of 80% compensation – Beneficiary APMC deposited substantial amounts with State – Partial disbursement to Trust – Withholding of balance justified due to pending land ceiling proceedings under Section 66 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act – No invalidation of acquisition on ground of non-payment [Paras 49–52].

Possession – Mode of taking possession – Drawing of mahazar/panchnama sufficient – Official Memorandum evidencing taking over of possession and handing over to beneficiary – Interim orders prevented further steps – Possession validly taken – Land vested in State free from encumbrances [Paras 53–54].

RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Earlier finding of lapse set aside by Supreme Court – Post-remand consideration limited – Acquisition not lapsed once award passed and possession taken – Non-payment of full compensation does not result in lapse, only interest payable [Paras 15, 56, 61].

Acceptance of Compensation – Acquiescence – Trust participated in meetings fixing compensation, accepted substantial amounts, executed indemnity bonds, sought enhancement under Section 18 – Subsequent refund after adverse orders does not undo acquiescence – Doctrine of approbate and reprobate applied – Writ challenge not maintainable after acceptance of compensation [Paras 62–65].

Public Purpose – Acquisition of Trust Property – Charitable nature of Trust not a bar to acquisition – Establishment of APMC market yard a valid public purpose – Power of eminent domain upheld [Paras 59–60].

Decision: Writ Appeals dismissed – Order dated 03.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing WP Nos. 3884/1999 and 37140/2000 affirmed – Acquisition proceedings upheld – No costs [Paras 66–67].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – MMRDA Act, 1974 – Grant of TDR instead of monetary compensation – Illegality – Land of petitioners acquired for Santacruz–Chembur Link Road project – Competent Authority unilaterally awarded compensation in the form of TDR without determining monetary compensation under Section 35 – Statutory scheme under Section 35 mandates determination of “amount” payable – Held: Compensation under the MMRDA Act must be monetary and cannot be substituted by TDR unilaterally – Award dated 15.12.2012 held arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 28–35].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 35, MMRDA Act – Step-wise procedure mandatory – Section 35 provides a complete code for determination of compensation – Requires attempt at agreement under Section 35(2) and, failing that, determination of compensation based on net average monthly income – No provision permitting unilateral grant of TDR – Any deviation from statutory mechanism violates authority of law under Article 300A [Paras 23–29, 34–35].

Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) – Consent of land owner – Requirement of consensus – Even where statute contemplates TDR (as under MRTP Act), grant must be by consensus – Applying Full Bench decision in Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers – Under MMRDA Act, which does not expressly provide for TDR, unilateral imposition of TDR is impermissible – Petitioners on stronger footing [Paras 30–34].

Alternative Remedy – Tribunal under Section 35(6) – Not efficacious – Tribunal’s jurisdiction confined to disputes regarding quantum of monetary compensation based on net average monthly income – Tribunal cannot adjudicate legality of grant of TDR in lieu of monetary compensation – Objection of alternative remedy rejected [Paras 36–37].

Delay and Laches – Continuing violation of Article 300A – Acquisition completed in 2011–2012, writ petition filed in 2024 – Held: Forcible deprivation of property without lawful compensation constitutes continuing wrong – State cannot defeat constitutional right to property on ground of delay – Reliance placed on Sukh Dutt Ratra, Vidya Devi, and Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah [Paras 38–45].

Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Article 300A – Deprivation of property must be by authority of law and accompanied by just, fair and reasonable compensation – Compensation is integral to lawful acquisition – Unilateral grant of TDR amounts to taking possession without authority of law – Violates constitutional and human right to property [Paras 39–44].

Relief – Quashing of Award – Direction to determine monetary compensation – Impugned award dated 15.12.2012 and communication dated 01.04.2024 quashed – Respondents directed to determine monetary compensation strictly in accordance with Section 35(2) to 35(5) of the MMRDA Act – Exercise to be completed within six months – Writ petition allowed [Paras 49–51].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned award and communication set aside – Respondents directed to determine and pay monetary compensation as per Section 35 of the MMRDA Act within six months.

Sports Law – Olympic Selection – Cross Country Skiing – Exclusion of Meritorious Athlete – Arbitrary Selection Process – Petitioner, top-ranked Indian athlete as per FIS points list dated 19.01.2026, excluded from Olympic consideration on ground of non-participation in World Championship – Held: FIS Qualification System prescribes exhaustive, objective, points-based eligibility criteria under Section C – Participation in World Championship not a mandatory eligibility condition – Selection based on extraneous criteria is manifestly arbitrary and unsustainable in law [Paras 34–45].

Sports Selection – FIS Qualification System – Distinction between Athlete Eligibility and Quota Allocation – Section C governs athlete eligibility based on age, medical fitness, and FIS points – Section D relates only to allocation of quota to National Olympic Committees – Held: Respondents impermissibly conflated quota allocation with athlete eligibility – Additional conditions cannot be read into the Qualification System by executive interpretation [Paras 38–44].

Administrative Law – Arbitrariness – Introduction of Non-Notified Selection Criteria – Respondents restricted Olympic selection to performance in March 2025 World Championship, ignoring notified assessment period from 01.07.2024 to 18.01.2026 – Held: Retrospective and selective application of criteria defeats the notified qualification framework and violates principles of fairness and transparency [Paras 46–47, 50].

Sports Governance – Long List under NOC Accreditation Manual – Scope and Effect – Long List dated 26.09.2025 relied upon to exclude petitioner – Held: Long List is only an accreditation mechanism and cannot override Final List based on FIS points – Clause 3.2.2 does not mandate World Championship participation as a precondition – Exclusion from Long List cannot defeat substantive eligibility [Paras 48–49].

Judicial Review – Sports Matters – Limits and Exceptions – While courts ordinarily defer to expert bodies in athlete selection, interference is justified where decision-making is arbitrary, unfair, or contrary to governing rules – Present case falls within exception warranting judicial intervention [Paras 31–33, 45].

Ad-hoc Committee – Selection Process – Procedural Impropriety and Bias – Selection undertaken by Ad-hoc Committee applying criteria not traceable to international qualification documents – Held: Committee acted beyond authority and contrary to binding FIS framework – Selection process vitiated [Paras 50, 52–55].

Relief – Direction to Ensure Olympic Participation – Prayer to include petitioner allowed – Respondent IOA and Ad-hoc Committee failed in supervisory duty – Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports directed to make all reasonable efforts to facilitate petitioner’s participation in Winter Olympics, Milano Cortina 2026, with full cooperation from IOA [Paras 56–58].

Observations on Role of State and Sports Bodies – Ministry cannot act as mute spectator in matters affecting athletes’ careers and national representation – Fairness, transparency, and merit-based governance are integral to sports administration – Institutional indifference deprecated [Paras 54–59].

Decision: Writ Petition partly allowed – Exclusion of petitioner declared arbitrary and illegal – Directions issued to facilitate petitioner’s participation in XXV Olympic Winter Games, Milano Cortina 2026 – Prayer C (challenge to Ad-hoc Committee) kept pending; respondents directed to file reply – Matter listed for further hearing.

Criminal Law – Discharge – Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 397 CrPC – Revision petition filed against order refusing discharge of accused in a case alleging financial fraud by office-bearers of a Co-operative Society – Held: At the stage of discharge, Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out – Revisional court cannot assess probative value or admissibility of evidence in detail – No perversity or illegality in the Magistrate’s order declining discharge [Paras 6, 15].

Cheating – Section 420 IPC – Concealment of True Consideration – Conveyance of Society Property – Accused, as President and Secretary of Society, allegedly entered into agreement granting right of way to builder by suppressing actual consideration of ₹1.70 crores and showing only ₹35 lakhs – Society induced to part with valuable property on false representation – Held: Dishonest concealment of material facts causing wrongful loss to Society and wrongful gain to accused squarely attracts offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC [Paras 8–10].

Forgery – Section 468 IPC – False Document – Agreement Executed Without True Authority – Agreement executed by accused showing false consideration amount and misrepresenting approval of Society – Held: Document executed by suppressing true facts and without informed consent of Society constitutes a “false document” – Forgery committed for the purpose of cheating – Section 468 IPC prima facie attracted [Paras 11–12].

Falsification of Accounts – Section 477A IPC – False Entries in Society Records – Accused alleged to have made false entries in Minutes Book and registers of Society regarding consideration received – Held: Being officers of the Society, making false entries with intent to defraud the Society attracts Section 477A IPC [Para 13].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Section 406 IPC – Entrustment – Amount paid by builder to accused not amounting to entrustment as defined under Section 405 IPC – Held: Section 406 IPC may not be attracted – However, existence of one unsustainable charge is not a ground to discharge accused when other offences are prima facie made out [Para 14].

Evidence at Discharge Stage – Statements of Witnesses and Income Tax Records – Prosecution relying on statements of builder’s officials, brokers and Income Tax officers to show payment of actual consideration – Held: Evaluation of credibility and admissibility of such evidence is a matter for trial – Cannot be examined in revision against refusal of discharge [Para 15].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Order of Magistrate refusing discharge upheld – Prosecution to proceed for offences under Sections 420, 468 and 477A IPC – No ground for interference under revisional jurisdiction.

Service Law – Selection Process – Fair Price Shop Dealer – Allocation of Marks for Interview – Judicial Restraint on Finalisation of Selection – Non-est Selection – Notification issued inviting applications for appointment of Fair Price Shop dealer providing 50 marks for written test and 50 marks for oral interview – Appellant secured full marks in written test but was unsuccessful in interview – Selection challenged on ground of excessive weightage to interview and violation of constitutional principles – Learned Single Judge dismissed writ petition applying doctrine of estoppel on ground that appellant participated in selection process – Held: Though ordinarily a candidate who participates in a selection process is estopped from challenging it, such principle cannot apply where the selection itself is conducted in violation of binding judicial directions – Selection continued and finalised despite specific direction in W.P. No.3553 of 2012 & batch restraining finalisation till revision of guidelines – Entire selection process rendered non-est in law – Court cannot uphold an appointment made in defiance of directions issued by a constitutional court – Judgment of Single Judge set aside – Fresh selection directed in accordance with revised criteria pursuant to judgment in W.P. No.7022 of 2013 & batch quashing G.O.Ms.No.4 of 2011 – Appeal allowed [Paras 12–14].

Administrative Law – Doctrine of Estoppel – Participation in Selection Process – Exception – Participation in selection ordinarily bars subsequent challenge – However, estoppel has no application where selection is vitiated by illegality and conducted contrary to express judicial आदेश – Rule of estoppel cannot legitimise an act that is void in law [Paras 12–13].

Constitutional Law – Judicial Discipline – Binding Nature of Court Directions – Authorities bound to comply with interim and final directions issued by High Court – Any action taken in contravention thereof is void and unenforceable – Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot sustain such actions [Paras 9, 13].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 19.06.2014 in W.P. No.6463 of 2012 set aside – Respondents directed to initiate fresh selection process by fixing interview marks in accordance with criteria laid down pursuant to judgment dated 04.04.2013 in W.P. No.7022 of 2013 & batch – No costs – Connected miscellaneous applications closed.