Land Acquisition – Compensation – Assessment – Appeal Allowed – Matter Remanded for Fresh Decision – High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla allowed the appeal against the award by the Additional District Judge, Mandi, H.P., in a land acquisition case. The appeal was filed on the grounds that the learned Reference Court ignored critical factors such as the nature of the land and assessed compensation based on guesswork. The High Court remanded the matter back to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication, directing it to consider the commercial potentiality of the land and assess market value appropriately, following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the use of future sale transactions in determining market value [Paras 1-16].

Market Value – Reliance on Future Sale Transactions – Judicial Caution Required – The High Court emphasized that the Reference Court should avoid relying on sale transactions that occurred after the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act to determine market value, as per Supreme Court precedent. The increase in market value post-acquisition due to development activities must be carefully considered to prevent inflated compensation [Paras 11-14].

Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the award of the Reference Court. The matter was remanded back to the Reference Court for reassessment of compensation, ensuring adherence to the principles of fair market valuation and procedural propriety. The Reference Court was instructed to expedite the proceedings and resolve the matter within three months.

Revision under Article 227 against order denying adjournment for expert cross-examination – Challenge against Trial Court’s order dated 16.04.2024 dismissing adjournment application for cross-examining Dr. Jassy Anand (PW-7), a forensic expert engaged to compare signatures/thumb impressions in property transaction documents – Supreme Court previously granted only one opportunity for plaintiff to complete evidence, specifically directing that proceedings conclude by 30.04.2024 – High Court finds no merit in petitioner’s claim that an additional opportunity should be granted for producing the expert for cross-examination, noting the specific directive of the Supreme Court for only one opportunity and adherence to scheduled dates by the Trial Court – Revision petition dismissed due to lack of substantive reasoning for the expert’s non-availability on the fixed date and the Trial Court’s correct application of the Supreme Court’s directive. [Paras 1-6]

Compassionate Appointment – Rejection of Application – Petitioner’s husband died in 2008 while employed with Food Corporation of India – Petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment soon after but faced rejection and subsequent delays in processing her applications – High Court held that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but a concession meant to prevent destitution – Given the substantial time elapsed and no exceptional destitution shown, petitioner’s claim held unsustainable – Relevant policy (2013) not retrospective to cover 2008 – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-8]

Administrative Law – Compassionate Allowance and Benefits After Dismissal – Petitioner seeks judicial review of the decision rejecting his claim for compassionate allowance and other benefits following his dismissal from service in 2001 – The petitioner remained inactive for 21 years before initiating legal action – High Court emphasizes the principles of delay and laches, noting that unexplained long delays can detrimentally affect the entitlement to relief – Court holds that attempts to revive a lapsed cause of action are impermissible and, in the presence of a valid dismissal order, entitlement to retiral benefits does not arise [Paras 1-10].

Constitutional Law – Jurisdiction and Laches – The dismissal occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court – The petitioner failed to provide sufficient reason for the 21-year delay in seeking judicial review, which the Court found detrimental to the cause of justice – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedent Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551, regarding the adverse impact of delay and laches on the exercise of writ jurisdiction [Paras 7, 8, 9].

Decision: Petition Dismissed – The Court dismisses the petition on grounds of substantial delay, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to directly challenge the original dismissal order – No compelling case made out for entitlement to compassionate allowance under the circumstances described [Para 10].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR for cheating and conspiracy lodged based on allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation by organizers of an education centre regarding the recognition of an educational course – Supreme Court guidelines on quashing FIRs discussed, specifically in the context of misrepresentations about university course accreditation – FIR not quashed, as allegations and investigation suggest prima facie case against petitioners – Allegations involve misrepresentation of NCTE recognition for ETT course offered by Singhania University, which led to the complainant’s employment opportunities being adversely affected – Investigations revealed that Singhania University was not recognized by NCTE to conduct the said course, contrary to what was advertised by the petitioners – Supreme Court’s guidelines from State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal referred to determine non-applicability of quashing the FIR – Petition dismissed on grounds that prima facie case exists based on allegations and evidences – Petitioners’ contention that FIR was an abuse of process not accepted as Singhania University’s non-recognition by NCTE for ETT course stands confirmed by NCTE and university admission forms. Dismissed. [Paras 1-13]

Constitutional Law – Right to Life and Personal Liberty – Petitioners, fearing threats from private respondents after marrying against their wishes, seek protection under Article 21 – Court finds it appropriate to provide temporary police protection without adjudication on the merits of the threat perception – Police protection granted for one week, extendable on a day-to-day basis based on ground realities or upon request by petitioners – Petitioners restricted from attending high-risk activities to ensure their safety – [Paras 1-7].

Family Law – Right to Family Life – Despite threats, Court facilitates reconciliation efforts by allowing controlled family meetings – Family members of petitioner No. 1 permitted to meet under police supervision in civil attire – Meeting conditions set to ensure safety and decorum – [Para 8].

Procedure – Use of Court Orders – Court specifies that the order can be downloaded from the official website and used directly, ensuring swift implementation and compliance without the need for certified copies – [Para 10].

Order: Petition allowed to the extent mentioned above, providing temporary protection and arranging family meetings under supervision.

Termination & Reinstatement – Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 – Petitioner challenges Tribunal award granting reinstatement and back wages to respondent workman who was denied duty post-medical leave – Tribunal found the termination in violation of Industrial Disputes Act provisions – Held, termination was unjust, reinstatement ordered with 25% back wages – Fact of workman having secured employment elsewhere considered; on basis of his lower earnings at new job, tribunal deemed 25% back wages appropriate – [Paras 1-11]

Tribunal Findings – Evidence & Procedure – Tribunal relied on admissions from management and failure-report from conciliation proceedings; found management’s defense of workman abandoning job untrustworthy – Court upheld Tribunal’s approach and findings, affirming workman’s wrongful termination – [Paras 5-6, 10-11]

Compensation Modification – On appeal, High Court modifies relief; instead of reinstatement, grants lump-sum compensation considering the workman’s age, employment status, and management’s past conduct – Orders Rs. 3,30,000 compensation in lieu of reinstatement and continuity of service – [Para 12-14]

Property Dispute – Ownership and Encroachment – Appeal against First Appellate Court’s dismissal of suit – Trial court had decreed in favor of plaintiff, finding her the rightful owner in possession of the disputed property, an injunction was granted against encroachment claims by the defendants – Defendants contested, claiming encroachment on adjacent government property but failed to provide conclusive proof. [Paras 1-22]

Legal Admissions and Evidence – Defendants admitted plaintiff’s ownership in their written statement but contested the validity of ownership based on non-production of original sale deed and alleged encroachment – The appeal emphasized defendants’ failure to disprove plaintiff’s ownership or to substantiate claims of encroachment with credible evidence – Appeal restored trial court’s decree favoring the plaintiff. [Paras 11-14, 20-21]

Res Judicata – Suit not barred – Defendants unsuccessfully argued res judicata based on previous litigation against plaintiff’s husband which did not involve the plaintiff directly – Appellate court rejected res judicata application, aligning with plaintiff’s argument that judgments in personam affecting her husband did not bind her. [Paras 4, 16-17]

Decision:Appellate Judgment Reversed – High Court found First Appellate Court erred in its judgment – Recognized admissions by defendants and lack of substantial evidence against the plaintiff – Restored trial court’s judgment decreeing permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff. [Para 22]

Transfer of Criminal Complaint – Jurisdiction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1991 – Petition filed by accused for transfer of complaint related to dishonoured cheque from Fazilka to Chandigarh, claiming that complainant’s bank account is maintained at Chandigarh – Controversy over actual maintenance location of the bank account whether at Chandigarh or Fazilka – Respondents provided certificate from Canara Bank, Muthianwali Branch, Fazilka confirming account maintenance at Fazilka – Court finds jurisdictional issue to be a matter of factual determination, inappropriate for decision at the stage of petition for transfer – Petition disposed of with liberty granted to petitioners to raise jurisdiction issue before trial court, which may decide the same at the outset after allowing parties to lead evidence if necessary. [Paras 1-7]