Widow of deceased soldier - Allotment of land - Symbolic possession - Revenue rasta (road) not assigned - Petitioner approached the court through a writ petition - Deceased soldier's gallantry - Widow allotted 10 acres of land - Symbolic possession of 8 acres delivered - Remaining 2 acres under forest cover - Petitioner not assigned revenue rasta – Held - respectful treatment for the surviving family members of a martyr - Valiant services deserve honor and recognition - Allotment of land becomes purposeless without revenue rasta - Widow unable to fully utilize the land since 2009 - repeated court access and delays - Monetary recompense directed - directive for compensation - Remittance of Rs. 5 lakhs into the petitioner's savings bank account by the State of Punjab. Appeal disposed off accordingly.

Abetment of suicide - Essential elements - Mere allegations of harassment not sufficient to establish guilt - Conviction under Section 306 IPC requires proof of instigation or intentional aid to the commission of suicide - Direct or indirect act/s of incitement needed - Act/s should be proximate to the time of occurrence - Absence of abetment element from the allegations renders offence under Section 306 IPC non-existent. (Para 36, Para 39, Para 42, Para 45)

Insufficient evidence of harassment or abetment - Prosecution failed to prove that deceased was meted with harassment by the accused prior to her death - No evidence of instigation or abetment leading to suicide - Recovery of suicide note questionable - No direct evidence linking suicide note to actual incident of suicide - Lack of cogent and convincing evidence to support allegations of harassment or abetment against accused. (Para 26, Para 30, Para 32)

Importance of proximate action - Act/s of incitement should be proximate to the time of occurrence - Reprimanding a student for indiscipline does not amount to instigation to commit suicide - Teacher's duty to instill discipline does not imply intentional aid or instigation to commit suicide. (Para 42)

Need for continuous harassment and specific circumstances - Continuous harassment and specific circumstances showing deliberate insult without justifiable cause or reason required to establish abetment - Evidence of repeated specific allegations of harassment and insult lacking in the present case. (Para 41)

Failure to establish guilt under Section 306 IPC - Essential elements of offence not present - Lack of evidence showing instigation or intentional aid to commit suicide - Conviction cannot be sustained based on mere allegations of harassment - No cogent evidence connecting accused to suicide of deceased. (Para 35, Para 46)

Quashing of judgment and order of conviction - Acquittal of accused - Insufficient evidence to support charges - Allegations of harassment and abetment not established - Judgment and order of sentence set aside. (Para 48)

Change in category during the recruitment process - Not permitted: Once a candidate applies under a specific category, they cannot be allowed to change their category during the selection or midway through the recruitment process. The court cited previous judgments and an advertisement condition to support this principle. (Para 6 and 8)

Failure to upload required documents - Consequence: In this case, the petitioner had not uploaded the DESM (Dependent of Ex-Servicemen) Eligibility Certificate as required by the advertisement. The court held that the petitioner's failure to comply with this requirement had consequences for her claim. (Para 10)

Failure to take advantage of opportunities - Significance: The petitioner had multiple opportunities to address grievances or correct uploaded data but failed to avail herself of them. The court considered this in assessing the petitioner's request for a change in category. (Para 11)

Responsibility for delay - Placed on the petitioner: The court concluded that the petitioner was responsible for the delay in seeking a change in category. The petitioner's failure to act in a timely manner contributed to the dismissal of her writ petition. (Para 11)

Merit of the writ petition - Lack thereof: Considering the submissions and evidence, the court found no merit in the petitioner's claims. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. (Para 12)

Dowry death - Ingredients - Conviction based on proof of cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before death - Nexus between alleged harassment and death must be established - Presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act - Examination of evidence to ascertain whether cruelty or harassment leading to suicide is proved beyond reasonable doubt - Acquittal of husband and tenant - Conviction of brother-in-law and sister-in-law - Appeal against conviction. (Para 11-15)

Prosecution case - Allegations of dowry demand and harassment - Deceased married to appellant's brother - Alleged demands of scooter and color TV - Complaints of harassment made to family members - Allegations of illicit relationship of appellant with tenant - Confrontation leading to tenant vacating the house - Continuation of alleged illicit relationship - Deceased acting as an obstacle - Allegation of murder made against appellants, husband, and tenant - FIR lodged after the death - Charge-sheet filed against appellants, husband, and tenant. (Para 19-21, 26)

Trial court judgment - Conviction of appellants - Acquittal of husband and tenant - Appeal against conviction - Plea of false implication - Delay in lodging FIR - Contradictions in statements of prosecution witnesses - Lack of external injuries on deceased's body - Reliance on testimony of interested witnesses - Alleged cordial relations between deceased and husband's family - Challenge to interpretation of evidence by trial court. (Para 7-10, 17, 32, 37)

Examination of evidence - Ingredients of dowry death - Marriage within seven years - Unnatural death - Cruelty or harassment soon before death - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act - Testimony of witnesses - Statements of deceased's father, mother, sister, and other witnesses - Allegations of dowry demand and harassment - Complaints made to family members - Allegations of illicit relationship and confrontation with tenant - Post-mortem report indicating death by hanging. (Para 19-21, 25, 27-29, 31)

Defense arguments - False implication - Delay in lodging FIR - Contradictions in prosecution witnesses' statements - Lack of evidence linking appellants to deceased's death - Alleged cordial relations between deceased and husband's family - Challenge to interpretation of evidence by trial court. (Para 8, 17, 35)

Failure to establish nexus between demand of dowry and harassment - Insufficiency of evidence to support prosecution's case - Lack of positive and cogent evidence - Conviction cannot be sustained - Benefit of doubt given to appellants. (Para 38)

Acquittal - Lack of unimpeachable evidence - Failure to establish demand of dowry - Insufficiency of evidence to prove cruelty or harassment by husband and tenant - Benefit of doubt extended to appellants - Conviction set aside - Appellants acquitted of charges under Sections 304B IPC, 498 IPC. (Para No. 39, 40)

Constitutional Law - Writ Petition under Articles 226, 227 – Challenge to Appellate Authority Order – Petitioner challenged the order of the Commissioner, Gurugram, which directed payment of additional stamp duty on the deed of assignment. High Court exercised its jurisdiction to interpret relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Held that the order of the Commissioner was incorrect – Writ petition allowed and the impugned order set aside. [Paras 1-26]

Stamp Duty on Deed of Assignment - Interpretation of Conveyance – Analysis – Held that a deed of assignment transferring the right to recover debts falls within the definition of 'conveyance' under Section 2(10) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The duty is determined by the amount of consideration paid for the assignment, not the total recoverable debt – Court directed that stamp duty should be calculated based on the consideration amount of Rs.3,04,00,000/- instead of the total recoverable debt of Rs.84,49,38,818/-. [Paras 8-13]

Decision – Quashing of Appellate Authority’s Order – Court quashed the order requiring additional stamp duty payment based on the total recoverable debt, directing that the matter be treated as closed with the excess amount paid to be treated as a penalty. No further recalculation or refund directed. [Paras 25-26]

Constitutional Law – Equality Before Law – Petition challenging the ten-year limit for considering sports achievements for government job eligibility under the sports quota – Petitioner’s earlier sports achievements excluded by the impugned Government Order – High Court finds the ten-year restriction arbitrary, lacking rational basis, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution – Impugned Government Order quashed – Held that the petitioner’s sports achievements must be considered without reference to their date of attainment – [Paras 1-23].

Administrative Law – Government Policy – Impugned Government Order issued as part of sports recruitment policy, intending to ensure representation by appointed sportspersons in respective departments for at least five years – Court rules that restricting sports achievement consideration to ten years does not logically support the intended policy outcome, thereby failing the rational nexus test – [Paras 14-20].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitations – While courts typically do not interfere with executive policy, exceptions apply when a policy is shown to be arbitrary, irrational, or manifestly unjust – High Court exercises judicial review over the impugned Government Order due to its failure to satisfy the rational nexus test under Article 14 – [Paras 20-22].

DECISION: The petition is allowed – Government Order No. 8, dated 23.11.2020, is quashed with respect to the challenged provisions – Respondents directed to consider the petitioner’s sports performance without regard to the date of achievements – No order as to costs – All pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Administrative Law – Delay and Laches – Constructive Res Judicata – Writ petition challenging the cancellation of allotment and eviction orders dated 28.02.1996 and 17.05.1999, respectively, and the appellate order dated 15.05.2003. The petitioners approached the court in 2023, with an unreasonable delay in invoking writ jurisdiction. Held, the writ petition suffers from laches and undue delay, which disentitles the petitioners from discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, the doctrine of constructive res judicata applies, precluding the writ court from examining issues substantially decided in previous civil suits. Petition dismissed. [Paras 8, 14]

Equity – Delay in Legal Recourse – The petitioners' gross delay and indolence in invoking writ jurisdiction were not explained, rendering their approach to the court inequitable. Held, equitable relief cannot be granted to parties approaching the court after an inexplicably long delay. [Para 8]

Decision:

Petition dismissed. The court found no merit in the writ petition due to the unexplained delay and the principle of constructive res judicata. The orders of cancellation and eviction by the respondents were upheld. [Paras 14-15]

Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - constructive res judicata - Earlier petition dismissed but petitioner or their predecessor not impleaded - Causes of action, reliefs, and khasra numbers in the earlier petition similar to present petition - Doctrine of res judicata not applicable - Impugned orders suffer from a vice of breach to the principle of constructive res judicata - Multiplicity of proceedings - Menace of recurrence of proceedings - Statutory bar of estoppel operating against the Gram Panchayat concerned and authorities who drew the impugned annexures - Impugned annexures declared to be stained - Petition allowed.

Village Common Lands – Eviction Petition – Ownership and Control – Writ petition against eviction orders under Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Public Premises Act, 1973. The Gram Panchayat sought eviction of the petitioners from the land described as "Gair Mumkin Abadi." The petitioners contended that the land, recorded as "JumlaMushtarka Malkan" in ownership and "Maqbuja Malkan" in possession, did not vest in the Gram Panchayat but in the village proprietary body, hence the Panchayat could not initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961. Held, the Gram Panchayat has management and control over such lands, not ownership, making the eviction petition under the Act of 1973 valid. Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-14]

Revenue Records – Land Classification – Abadi Deh vs. Gair Mumkin Abadi – The petitioners argued the land fell under "abadi deh" and thus outside "shamlat deh." Held, the land was recorded as "Gair Mumkin Abadi," not "abadi deh," and the Gram Panchayat did not hold absolute ownership. Therefore, proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1973 were appropriate. [Paras 6-10]

Estoppel – Challenge to Consolidation Scheme – Petitioners are estopped from challenging the designations made in the consolidation scheme since they challenged the orders only on maintainability grounds. Held, any dispute regarding land designated during consolidation should have been raised at that stage, not through the current proceedings. [Para 12]

Decision:

Petition dismissed. The institution of the eviction petition under Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Public Premises Act, 1973, is valid as the Gram Panchayat has management and control rights over the land, though not ownership. The land's classification as "Gair Mumkin Abadi" stands, and the petitioners are estopped from challenging the consolidation designations. [Para 14]