Civil Law - Land Acquisition – Review – Maintainability of Review – Earlier SLPs filed by appellants dismissed for non-prosecution – Held: Dismissal of SLPs for default does not bar maintainability of review petition – Doctrine of merger does not apply to non-speaking dismissal orders – Review petitions held to be maintainable under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC [Paras 18-19].

Limitation – Delay of Over 12 Years – Condonation – Review petitions filed with delay ranging from 4557 to 4586 days – Delay attributed to personal hardships and death of appellant Harke Ram – Held: Delay condoned in view of principles laid down in Katiji, Dhiraj Singh, Huchanagouda and Suresh Kumar cases – Denial of enhanced compensation would violate equity and parity – Interest on enhanced compensation denied for period of delay as equitable balance [Paras 20-24].

Compensation – Principle of Parity – Enhanced compensation already granted by Supreme Court in Rajender Singh v. State of Haryana to similarly situated landowners for same acquisition – Appellants’ lands part of same notification and award – Held: Appellants entitled to same enhancement of ₹20,00,000/- per acre as per Rajender Singh judgment – No justification to deny benefit merely due to procedural delay when entitlement otherwise established [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Review petitions allowed – Delay in filing condoned subject to denial of interest for delayed period – Applicants entitled to enhanced compensation of ₹20,00,000/- per acre in line with Supreme Court judgment in Rajender Singh v. State of Haryana – Statutory benefits under Land Acquisition Act granted, excluding interest for delayed period – Appeals disposed of accordingly.

Consumer Law – Maintainability of Writ – Challenge to National Commission Orders – High Court holds that although writ under Article 226 is maintainable against National Commission orders, such jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and ordinarily declined when Article 227 remedy exists – Petitioner’s challenge rejected as findings of Consumer Fora were concurrent, factual, and non-perverse – Held: Writ petition not maintainable on facts; no exceptional circumstance shown [Paras 18–21, 24–27]

Alternate Remedy – Article 226 vs. Article 227 – When supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is available, invocation of Article 226 ordinarily impermissible unless there is violation of natural justice, patent lack of jurisdiction, or infringement of fundamental rights – Supreme Court precedents in Whirlpool, Harbanslal Sahnia, Radha Krishan Industries, Ibrat Faizan and Rikhab Chand Jain applied – Petitioner failed to bring case within exceptions [Paras 12–16, 18–21]

Consumer Protection Act – Concurrent Findings – Real Estate Project – Consolidation Proceedings – Petitioner alleged force majeure under Section 56 of the Contract Act – Consumer Fora found that project land was under consolidation and possession never with petitioner – Petitioner's pleas rejected repeatedly – High Court refuses re-appreciation of facts in writ jurisdiction – Findings held reasonable and not perverse [Paras 22–24, 26]

Jurisdiction – Supervisory Role of High Court – National Commission treated as ‘Tribunal’ under Articles 136 & 227 – High Court reiterates its limited power of interference and declines to act as appellate authority over factual determinations of Consumer Fora [Paras 15–16, 18–21]

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – No interference warranted with orders of District, State or National Consumer Commissions – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 27].

Service Law – Police Personnel – Corruption – Dismissal – ASI trapped for accepting bribe – Inquiry held valid – SP competent authority – Court affirms dismissal as justified under Rule 16.2 and Rule 16.40 PPR; length of service irrelevant when guilt of corruption established [Paras 6–8, 12–13].

Competent Authority – SP as Appointing & Disciplinary Authority – Challenge rejected – Court relies on Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2865 – SP competent to dismiss ASI – Contention misconceived [Para 6].

Departmental Proceedings – Approval of District Magistrate – Not Required in Corruption Cases – Rule 16.38 PPR inapplicable; Rule 16.40 governs corruption matters – Following Narender Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 3242 – Contention rejected [Paras 7–8].

Natural Justice – No Requirement to Call for Comments on Inquiry Report – Rule 16.24 PPR contains complete procedure – Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority may be different – Supply of inquiry report + opportunity to reply + personal hearing = full compliance – No violation of natural justice [Paras 9–11].

Show-Cause Notice – Mention of Proposed Punishment – Not Illegal – Post 42nd Amendment to Article 311(2), no right to representation on proposed penalty – State instructions of 1975 merely advisory – Court relies on Constitution Bench in Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398 [Paras 10–11].

Rule 16.2 PPR – Length of Service & Pension – Consideration Not Mandatory in Corruption Cases – Court cites State of Punjab v. Ram Singh (1992) 4 SCC 54 – Single act of corruption is “gravest misconduct” warranting dismissal; long service cannot shield corrupt conduct [Paras 12–13].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Court cannot re-appreciate evidence – Interference justified only for perversity or procedural violations – No such infirmity found – Court relies on Subrata Nath (2022), P. Gunasekaran, Syed Yakoob (1964), CCRAS v. Bikartan Das (2023) [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No perversity or procedural violation – Dismissal from service justified and upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 16–17].

Property Law – Agricultural Tenancy – New Tenure Land – Transfer without permission – Respondents (original plaintiffs) filed suit for possession of agricultural land after State dropped land acquisition proceedings – Appellant (original defendant society) took possession under MOU and claimed to have paid entire consideration – Courts below held land was new tenure land under Section 43 of Tenancy Act – No permission obtained from competent authority – Held: Transfer void – Possession directed to be restored – Defendant had no enforceable right in absence of suit for specific performance – Agreement unenforceable due to legal bar [Paras 3.1, 5–6, 13]

Evidence Law – Unregistered Agreement to Sell – Defendant relied on unregistered MOU and payment receipts to claim possessory rights – Did not file suit for specific performance – Held: Unregistered agreement cannot be basis for independent right or permanent injunction – Relief indirectly cannot be granted when substantive relief of specific performance not claimed – [Paras 7–9]

Adverse Possession – No Plea Raised – Defendant neither pleaded nor proved adverse possession – Courts below correctly held no title accrued to defendant – Mere possession without title or legal transfer insufficient [Para 6]

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – No substantial question of law – Concurrent findings by Trial Court and Appellate Court – Reappreciation of evidence not permissible – Appeal dismissed in absence of error in law or perversity in findings [Paras 11–13]

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed at admission stage – No substantial question of law involved – Concurrent findings upheld – Connected Civil Application disposed of accordingly – Possession rightly ordered to be returned to plaintiff – Defendant not entitled to protection under Section 53A or injunction on basis of void transaction.

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Unlawful Assembly – Assault – Cross-FIR – Evidence of complainant and injured witnesses found to be partisan, contradictory, and inconsistent with their police statements which admitted mutual fight and injuries on opposite side – Suppression of fatal injuries on accused’s father (deceased Ganpatsinh) in cross-case held fatal – Trial court’s view held a “possible view” warranting no interference [Paras 6–12, 15].

Witness Credibility – Interested/Injured Witnesses – PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7 admitted during cross-examination that police statements recorded a mutual fight and blows inflicted by prosecution side – Court notes material improvements, suppression of crucial facts, inconsistency regarding weapon use (bhala vs. chappu), and contradictions with Investigating Officer (PW-9) – Held: Testimony unreliable and unsafe for conviction in absence of independent corroboration [Paras 7–10].

Medical Evidence – Nature of Injuries – Medical certificates (Exhs. 32–37, 41, 43) show only simple abrasions and lacerated wounds – No injury consistent with alleged knife blow to chest – Absence of grievous injuries inconsistent with prosecution’s claim of severe attack with lethal weapons – Held: Medical evidence does not support ocular version [Paras 8–10].

Forensic Evidence – Weapon Recovery – FSL Report (Exh. 66) inconclusive – No tamancha recovered to support allegation under Section 506(2) IPC – Panchnama witnesses formal; no link between recovered weapons and injuries – Held: Recovery does not corroborate prosecution case [Paras 8–10].

Independent Witnesses – Non-examination – Incident occurred in village with 60–70 houses; FIR itself mentions interveners (Somabhai Fulabhai, Mangal @ Yogibhai, etc.) – None examined – Held: Failure to examine independent witnesses severely undermines prosecution case, especially in cross-case scenario [Paras 7–10].

Cross-Cases – Mutual Fight – Complainant and injured witnesses were themselves accused in cross-FIR (C.R. I-170/1993) for death of accused’s father – Suppression of mutual injuries and one-sided narration held deliberate and fatal to prosecution – Strong motive to falsely implicate accused established – Benefit of doubt justified [Paras 7–12].

Appellate Interference – Principles – Applying Chandrappa principles and Supreme Court rulings in Rajesh Prasad (2022) 3 SCC 471 and H.D. Sundara (2023) 9 SCC 581 – Court reiterates double presumption of innocence and limits on interference in acquittal appeals – Trial court’s view is a plausible, legally sustainable view – No ground to reverse acquittal [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of all accused upheld – Records and proceedings to be remitted [Paras 15].

Labour Law – Legal Representation – Section 36(4) ID Act – Employer’s Right to Counsel – Applicant, a small laundry employing 4–5 persons, sought leave to engage an Advocate for cross-examination in Reference proceedings – Labour Court rejected request solely on objection of workman – Held: Refusal was mechanical and contrary to settled law – Court must exercise discretion to prevent prejudice and ensure fairness – Impugned order set aside [Paras 6, 11–13, 17–18].

Industrial Adjudication – Fair Trial – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioner was unskilled in legal procedure and unable to cross-examine or present evidence effectively – Denial of legal aid to such a party violates Articles 14 and 21 – Right to fair hearing includes reasonable opportunity to defend with appropriate representation – Leave under Section 36(4) must be interpreted liberally in such cases [Paras 15–16].

Statutory Interpretation – Consent and Leave under Section 36(4) – Twin conditions of opposite party’s consent and Court’s leave are mandatory – However, Court must scrutinise mala fide or arbitrary denial of consent – Labour Court has power to override such refusal in interest of justice – Consent cannot be used to exploit or disadvantage the other party [Paras 9–10, 14].

Legal Framework – Special Law vs. General Law – Advocates Act vs. ID Act – Section 30 of Advocates Act does not override Section 36 of ID Act – ID Act being special legislation governs representation before Labour Courts – Special law prevails over general law – Labour Court’s discretion remains intact [Paras 9, 23–24].

Judicial Precedents – Court relies on Bangalore Water Supply, Paradip Port Trust, T.K. Varghese, Thyssen Krupp Industries, and Yeshwant Harichandra Gharat to reaffirm that denial of representation must not result in inequality or miscarriage of justice – Representation must be allowed where required for effective participation [Paras 4.1–4.4, 14].

Decision: Civil Revision Application allowed – Labour Court's order dated 01.12.2023 quashed – Applicant permitted to engage Advocate of choice – Labour Court to proceed on merits – Appreciation recorded for Legal Aid Counsel Mr. Shailesh Pathak [Paras 18–20].

Civil Writ – Service Law - Family Pension – Determination of Marital Status – Service Records Prevail – Respondent consistently recorded as wife/nominee in employee’s service register for entire career – No objection raised by department during lifetime of employee – Held: Service records are decisive for pension entitlement; criminal court findings in 498-A/494 IPC case not conclusive for determining marital status for pension purposes [Paras 19–23].

Bigamy Allegation – Effect of Criminal Case – Criminal Court’s observations in C.C. No.132/2006 were confined to charges under Sections 498-A & 494 IPC – Such findings do not constitute a binding civil declaration of marriage nor conclusively establish first/second wife status – Standard of proof differs – Department cannot rely solely on criminal case to deny pension [Paras 20–21].

Competing Marriage Claims – Burden on Department – Department failed to prove that respondent’s marriage was void or that she was the “second wife” during subsistence of earlier marriage – No civil court declaration produced – Long cohabitation (45 years) and three children raise presumption of valid marriage – Department’s reliance on executive circulars inapplicable absent proof of bigamy [Paras 17, 23–25].

Pension Rules – Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of 1980 Rules – Even in case of multiple widows, pension must be shared equally – After death of alleged first wife in 2014, respondent remained the only surviving widow at employee’s death in 2019 – Thus entitled to full family pension [Paras 14, 22].

Service Conduct Rules & Suppression – Allegation that employee suppressed first marriage in service records rejected – No disciplinary proceedings initiated during entire tenure – Department accepted respondent as wife for decades; cannot dispute after employee’s death [Paras 19(iii), 23].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Order of Single Judge directing release of family pension to respondent upheld – No costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 26–27].

NDPS Act – Bail – Disclosure Statement of Co-Accused – Weak Evidentiary Value – Petitioner implicated only based on co-accused’s disclosure; no recovery from petitioner; Court holds disclosure statement without corroboration cannot be sole basis for implication; evidentiary value to be tested at trial – Raises serious doubts regarding fairness of investigation [Paras 3, 6].

Custody & Delay – Long Incarceration Dilutes Rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act – Petitioner in custody since 12.06.2023; challan filed 07.12.2023; 28 witnesses cited but none examined – Delay not attributable to petitioner – Prolonged incarceration of 2 years 3 months 15 days violates Article 21; thus rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act stand diluted [Paras 6, 6.3–6.4].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions – Principles Summarised – Court reiterates jurisprudence:

• Twin conditions are cumulative, not alternative;

• Bail Court may look at defence material;

• “Not likely to commit offence while on bail” requires demonstrable probability, not theoretical presumption;

• Antecedents alone cannot justify rejection when case on merits is made out [Paras 6.2–6.6].**

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Reiterated – Cites line of Supreme Court precedents (Hussainara Khatoon; Antulay; Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain; Chitta Biswas; Nitish Adhikary) – Overcrowded dockets and systemic delay cannot justify prolonged incarceration; pre-trial detention cannot turn into punitive imprisonment [Paras 6.5–6.6].

Antecedents – Not Sole Ground to Deny Bail – Petitioner involved in two other cases per custody certificate – Court holds antecedents relevant but not determinative when prosecution case in present FIR itself is weak and delay substantial [Para 6.6].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to strict conditions including: no misuse of liberty, no tampering with evidence, appearance at trial dates, deposit of passport, maintaining same mobile number, monthly affidavit regarding non-involvement in offence – State given liberty to seek cancellation upon breach [Paras 7–9].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Appeal against Acquittal – State challenged judgment acquitting respondents of offences under Section 307 IPC and Section 307/34 IPC – Held: Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that injuries were caused by accused – Acquittal justified [Paras 1, 17, 20].

Evidence – Identification of Accused – Absence of Test Identification Parade – Injured and alleged eye-witness did not know accused earlier – Accused identified for first time in Court – Occurrence took place at night and assailants were standing in darkness – Held: Dock identification without prior TIP is weak and unreliable – Identity of accused not established [Paras 12-13].

Evidence – Injured Witness – Contradictions – Injured stated in police statement that assailants were unknown and standing in dark – Subsequently identified accused in Court – Identification held improbable as injury was inflicted from behind and injured became unconscious – Testimony not trustworthy [Paras 12-13].

Witness Testimony – Presence of Eye-Witness – PW5 Kartar Singh claimed to be present – Injured did not name or refer to PW5 either in FIR or evidence – PW5 closely related to injured – Did not take injured to hospital – Held: Presence of PW5 at spot doubtful and possibility of being introduced witness cannot be ruled out [Para 14].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery – Shoe allegedly recovered from spot on third day and another from accused – Place of occurrence was busy thoroughfare – Held: Recovery highly improbable and unreliable [Para 15].

Motive – Absence – Though motive not mandatory in every case – In facts of present case absence of motive weakened prosecution case – Failure to establish reason for accused to attack complainant [Para 16].

Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Presumption of innocence reinforced by acquittal – Appellate Court to interfere only in case of perversity or illegality – No infirmity or perversity found in trial Court judgment – Acquittal upheld [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment dated 27.11.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Faridkot acquitting respondents upheld – Pending applications disposed of.