Land Acquisition – Discrimination in land release – Petition against the High Powered Committee’s order and acquisition notifications – High Court dismisses petition finding no merit and no discrimination in the treatment of the petitioner compared to other similarly situated entities – Noted that development activities in the periphery of Chandigarh are restricted to the government or its agencies per policy – Petitioner’s request for release of land not considered compelling enough to warrant deviation from existing policies – Acquisition aimed at planned development overriding private development plans of the petitioner [Paras 1-48].

Application of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – The acquisition notifications under Sections 4 and 6 held valid – Discussion on the legitimacy of the acquisition process and the petitioner’s failed attempts to obtain licenses for development – Judicial findings emphasize the state’s priority in public development over private expectations [Paras 2-48].

Rights and Expectations – Legitimate expectation and discrimination claims rejected – The court holds that the petitioner’s expectations for a license or release of land do not override the clear public interest and policy considerations that favor state-controlled development [Paras 11-17].

Judicial Review – The court upholds the policy decisions that restrict development in the periphery of Chandigarh to government agencies – Legitimate expectation not found reasonable when weighed against public interest and policy restrictions [Paras 13-27].

Bail Appeal – Section 14(A)(2) SC/ST (POA) Act – Appellants, accused of abusing the defacto complainant using caste name and criminal intimidation, sought bail after being in custody for over 28 days – Special Court's order denying bail set aside – Court considered absence of previous criminal antecedents and lack of communal tension as reasons for granting bail [Paras 1-10].

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Abuse and Intimidation – Appellants accused under Sections 294(b), 506(i) IPC, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act for abusing defacto complainant while he performed cleaning work – Defacto complainant’s complaint led to appellants' arrest – Bail granted considering time in custody and absence of prior incidents [Paras 2-4].

Conditions for Bail – Appellants to execute bond and provide sureties – Conditions included daily appearance before police, prohibition on tampering with evidence or witnesses, cooperation with trial court proceedings – Breach of conditions to result in legal consequences [Paras 8-10].

Decision:

The Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting aside the Special Court's order. The appellants are granted bail on executing a bond of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties, and must comply with specified conditions to ensure their cooperation with judicial proceedings.

Family Law – Divorce – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Cruelty – Allegation of False Dowry Complaint: The husband (Appellant) claimed that the wife (Respondent) lodged a false dowry complaint against him, constituting cruelty. However, the court noted that no evidence, such as a copy of the complaint, was provided to substantiate this allegation. Moreover, the wife’s complaint to the All Women Police Station was aimed at reconciliation and living together. Held, the filing of the complaint did not amount to cruelty. [Paras 13-14]

Desertion – Lack of Proof: The husband alleged that the wife deserted him by refusing to live with him and insisting on a separate living arrangement. The court found no sufficient evidence to support these claims. It was noted that the wife made several attempts to reconcile and live with the husband, which he refused. Held, the husband failed to establish ‘animus deserendi’ (intention to desert) on the part of the wife. [Paras 15-16]

Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The court upheld the Trial Court’s decision that the husband failed to prove cruelty or desertion by the wife. The original petition for divorce was rightfully dismissed. [Paras 16-17]

Sexual Harassment – Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) – Appellant challenged the fact-finding report and second show-cause notice issued by the ICC, leading to his dismissal – Court upheld the ICC's procedures, stating no violation of natural justice principles – ICC's findings treated as those of an inquiry authority under the Vishaka guidelines and subsequent legal framework [Paras 1-36].

Principles of Natural Justice – Fair Hearing and Procedural Fairness – Appellant alleged denial of fair hearing and procedural lapses – Court found appellant was given adequate opportunity to respond, cross-examine witnesses, and access complaint documents – Dismissed claims of procedural unfairness [Paras 24-26].

Binding Nature of ICC Report – Disciplinary Authority’s Role – Court emphasized ICC's report as binding and sufficient for disciplinary action – Rejected need for separate departmental inquiry following ICC's findings – Aligned with Supreme Court's stance in Medha Kotwal Lele case and others [Paras 27-35].

Compliance with Service Jurisprudence – Double Jeopardy and Due Process – Appellant contended double jeopardy and lack of formal charge memo – Court clarified ICC's role as per statutory guidelines and internal college procedures, affirming dismissal based on ICC’s findings without requiring additional departmental inquiry [Paras 23-33].

Decision:The Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition are dismissed. The appellant's dismissal is upheld based on the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee. No costs were imposed.

Factual Background and Trial Court Proceedings – Revisionist, the father-in-law of the respondent, asserts ownership over the property through a chain of transfers culminating in a set of documents dated 27.07.1998 – Conflict arises post marital discord between respondent and revisionist’s son, leading to respondent’s alleged trespass – Initial suit for injunction and mesne profits partly decreed; current suit for possession and mesne profits filed – Trial court dismissed application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, prompting current revision petition [Para 2-10].

Trial Court’s Error – Misapplication of the legal framework concerning GPA sales post Suraj Lamp & Industries ruling – Erroneous non-recognition of ownership claims based on uncontested documentary evidence presented by the revisionist – Failure to effectively address admissions by the respondent acknowledging the revisionist’s acquisition of property rights [Para 17-34].

High Court Decision – Overturning of trial court’s order, recognizing revisionist’s ownership based on unambiguous, uncontested documentary evidence – Decree of possession awarded in favor of the revisionist with directions to respondent to vacate the property, acknowledging the failure of the trial court to appreciate the legal status of admissions [Para 35].

Remaining Issues – Directions to trial court to proceed with determination of mesne profits/damages, acknowledging these aspects involve triable issues requiring evidentiary adjudication [Para 36].

Background and Arrest – Appellant Mubeen Kadar Shaikh implicated in multiple FIRs following the Delhi bomb blasts on September 13, 2008 – Arrests followed disclosures by other arrested individuals and recovery of evidence including laptops and communication equipment allegedly used in the orchestration and execution of the bomb blasts – Email sent prior to blasts claimed responsibility and threatened further violence – Initial and subsequent arrests brought forward the “Media Cell” connection implicating the appellant [Paras 1-6, 18-23].

Bail Applications and Denials – Appellant’s multiple bail applications were denied based on the gravity of the charges, the evidence presented (including forensic reports and recoveries), and the alleged ongoing threat posed by active terror networks – Noted continuous judicial custody of over 13 years and a previous acquittal in a similar case based on similar evidence did not tilt in favor of bail due to the severe nature of the offenses and overarching conspiracies involved [Paras 7-10, 28-34].

Current Appeal – Challenging the latest bail denial, the appellant argued lack of direct evidence linking him to the conspiracies, discrepancies in evidence regarding the creation and last access times of critical emails alleged to have been sent by him – The appeal also highlighted the prolonged trial duration and the partial examination of listed witnesses [Paras 11-17, 36-43].

Court’s Analysis – Emphasized the stringent conditions for bail under the UAPA, relying on precedents that require a prima facie assessment of truthfulness in accusations in cases involving terrorism – Acknowledged the lengthy trial but pointed to the gravity and potential implications of releasing the appellant on bail [Paras 28, 37-41].

Decision and Direction – Bail denied based on comprehensive consideration of the involvement in a complex conspiracy, potential risk of absconding, influencing witnesses or committing further offenses – Directed expeditious trial proceedings, ordering the Special Court to conclude the trial with increased frequency [Paras 44-51].

Appeal and Background – Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. challenging the trial court’s conviction of appellant under Section 306 IPC for abetting the suicide of his mother by allegedly providing her with a lighter – FIR was lodged based on the statement of an eyewitness, leading to charges under Sections 306/114/120B IPC – Trial court relied primarily on the testimony of two school employees who claimed the appellant facilitated the suicide – Appellant contested these claims, citing biased investigation and absence of direct involvement [Para 1-2, 5-6].

Role of Appellant in Alleged Crime – Abetment to Suicide – High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the appellant’s active participation in abetting the suicide of the deceased. Notable was the lack of criminal intent and actual aid in the commission of the alleged act, despite the prosecution's claims of the appellant providing a lighter. The court noted the appellant’s efforts to extinguish the flames and save the deceased, further questioning the prosecution's narrative. [Paras 10-21]

Evaluation of Witness Credibility and Evidence – High Court criticized the trial court's reliance on the testimony of witnesses with potential biases due to personal and professional relationships. Contradictions in witness statements and procedural errors in handling witness testimonies under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were highlighted. The court stressed the importance of careful scrutiny of evidence, especially when the witness is intended to be discredited. [Paras 13-19]

High Court’s Analysis and Decision – High Court noted discrepancies and contradictions in witness testimonies, particularly those of the prosecution’s key witnesses – Found no direct evidence of appellant’s intent to abet the suicide – Concluded that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the appellant’s active role in abetting the suicide – Conviction and sentence set aside, appellant acquitted [Para 13-22].

Compulsory Retirement Controversy – Petitioner challenges his compulsory retirement under FR 56(j) based on his entire service record being reviewed, claiming it was without procedural compliance and an assessment of an ‘outstanding’ service record – Dispute centers on whether adverse records can be disregarded and if the timing of the review was legally appropriate – Tribunal dismisses OA, stating no procedural impropriety or unjust application of FR 56(j), emphasizes that full record review justified the decision – [Paras 1-16, 53-76]

Legal Interpretation of FR 56(j) – Consideration of entire service record, including past adverse entries permissible under FR 56(j) – Supreme Court precedents cited to reject “washed-off theory” where earlier adverse records may not be ignored in compulsory retirement considerations – High Court upholds that compulsory retirement under FR 56(j) is not punitive and does not imply stigma – [Paras 54, 59-61]

Procedural Adherence and Judicial Review – High Court examines whether procedural norms under FR 56(j) and related Office Memorandums were followed – Findings indicate the review was conducted post-petitioner reaching age threshold but within acceptable limits – Upholds Tribunal’s view that non-adherence to exact review timing does not invalidate compulsory retirement decision when procedural fairness is observed – [Paras 52, 55-56, 73-75]

Decision: The petition challenging the compulsory retirement was dismissed with no costs, affirming the decision of the Tribunal which found the retirement justified based on the petitioner’s service record, adherence to procedure, and lack of evidence of arbitrariness or malafides in the application of FR 56(j).

Domestic Violence and Maintenance – The High Court, reviewing lower court decisions that denied maintenance to a qualified but unemployed wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, held that educational qualification alone does not disqualify a spouse from claiming maintenance if they lack independent income - The court emphasized that the wife’s capability to earn should not undermine her entitlement to maintenance, which depends on the husband's obligation and the wife's current employment status – Maintenance granted. [Paras 6-10]

Compensation for Domestic Violence – Adjustment of compensation for pain and suffering from domestic violence – The High Court found no adequate reason in the lower court's reduction of compensation from Rs. 20,00,000 to Rs. 15,00,000 and restored the original amount, recognizing the impact of domestic violence on the wife’s mental health and marital expectations – Compensation restored to Rs. 20,00,000. [Para 11]

Legal Assessment and Procedural Fairness – The High Court criticized the procedural lapses in the lower courts, including failure to provide adequate reasoning for decisions, and remanded the matter for a fresh determination with instructions to avoid undue adjournments and consider the merits independently of the High Court’s observations. [Paras 12-18]