Land Acquisition – Lapse under Section 11-A – Delay in Award – No Lapse If Delay Caused by Court Stay – Petitioner claimed acquisition lapsed as award under Section 11 was made more than 11 years after Section 6 declaration – Held: Delay was due to stay orders obtained by adjacent landowners – Exclusion of stay period justified award being within 2-year limitation – Acquisition not deemed lapsed [Paras 13–18, 20]

Subsequent Purchaser – Lack of Locus to Challenge Acquisition – Petitioner acquired property via settlement deed in 2012, long after Section 4 notification (1989), Section 6 declaration (1990), and award (2001) – Court held that petitioner, as subsequent purchaser, could not question validity of completed acquisition [Paras 14–15, 20]

Revenue Records – Patta Mutation – Not Binding on Title – Petitioner relied on patta in her name to assert ownership – Held: Patta mutation behind petitioner’s back had been remitted for reconsideration – But ownership claim could not override completed acquisition process [Para 19]

Common Acquisition Notification – Stay in One Case Binds Others – Relying on Abhey Ram, Om Prakash, and other Supreme Court decisions – Held: Interim stay obtained by some landowners under a common acquisition notification binds authorities from proceeding further, even against other landowners who did not obtain stay – Authorities justified in not passing award during such period [Paras 16–18]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No lapse of acquisition proceedings – Petitioner, as post-acquisition title holder, cannot claim title against Housing Board – No costs – Connected writ miscellaneous petitions also closed [Paras 20–21]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of Rape and IT Act Offences – Consensual Relationship Followed by Marriage – FIR filed after marital discord – Petitioners sought quashing of FIR under Section 528 BNSS on basis of settlement and divorce by mutual consent – High Court noted that complainant admitted to marriage post-alleged incident and subsequently settled disputes through divorce – Held: FIR a result of emotional outburst and continuation of trial would be abuse of judicial process – FIR and all proceedings quashed [Paras 1–3, 8, 11, 15–24]

Consent and Promise to Marry – Rape Allegation – Complainant alleged rape on false promise of marriage – Court applied test laid down in Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of U.P. – Held: To constitute rape on false promise of marriage, promise must be false from inception and made in bad faith – Petitioner subsequently married the complainant – Hence, relationship deemed consensual and no offence made out [Paras 12–14, 23]

Abuse of Process – Divorce Granted by Mutual Consent – Respondent did not oppose petition – Marriage dissolved by Family Court under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act – Held: Continuation of proceedings post-divorce would be futile and cause unnecessary hardship – Quashing warranted to prevent misuse of criminal justice system [Paras 8, 15–17, 20–21]

Information Technology Offences – Circulation of MMS – Allegations of morphed and circulated explicit video – However, parties settled disputes and decree of divorce passed – High Court declined to examine digital evidence in view of settlement – Held: No fruitful purpose served by continuation of prosecution [Paras 3–6, 24]

Decision: FIR No. 135 of 2019 dated 16.11.2019 and all consequential proceedings quashed – Miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Civil Law  – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Bar of Suit by Special Statute – Land acquired under Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 – Notification under Section 10 issued prior to institution of suit – Land vested absolutely in Central Government – Civil Court jurisdiction barred under Section 26 – Trial Court erred in refusing to reject plaint – Held: Suit patently barred by law and plaint liable to be rejected [Paras 11–19].

Limitation – Articles 58 and 59 of Limitation Act – Challenge to sale deed – Pleading of date of knowledge instead of date of execution – Plaintiff pleaded knowledge of sale deed on 27.02.2022 – Issue of limitation becomes mixed question of law and fact – Trial Court justified in not rejecting plaint on limitation alone [Paras 9–10].

Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 – Effect of acquisition and vesting – After issuance of notification under Section 10, title vests in Central Government free from encumbrances – Civil dispute regarding title becomes irrelevant except for determination of entitlement to compensation – Only surviving right is claim to compensation [Paras 13–15].

Jurisdiction – Tribunal under Sections 14 and 17 of Act of 1957 – Tribunal empowered to decide disputes relating to compensation and entitlement thereto – Tribunal headed by a person who is or has been qualified to be a Judge of a High Court – Tribunal competent to decide incidental questions of title to determine entitlement to compensation – Civil Court jurisdiction excluded under Section 26 [Paras 14–18].

Precedents – Divergent views – Bombay High Court view in Sandeep v. Suchita not accepted – Views of Patna High Court and Jharkhand High Court preferred – Held: Once acquisition is complete, civil suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs is not maintainable [Paras 15–18].

Decision: Revision allowed – Impugned order set aside – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Plaint rejected as barred by Section 26 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 – Parties to bear own costs.

Maintainability – Writ Appeal by Statutory Committee – Quasi-judicial authority not “aggrieved” – Admission Supervisory Committee constituted under Section 3 of Act 15 of 2017 passed orders withholding and cancelling admission under OBC category – Single Judge set aside Committee’s orders and declared student eligible – Committee filed writ appeal – Held: Committee’s functions under Section 8 are adjudicatory with Civil Court-like powers under Section 8(3) – Beneficiaries/adversely affected persons are third parties and not the adjudicator – Adjudicating authority cannot challenge superior court’s interference with its quasi-judicial orders – allowing such appeals would undermine judicial discipline and create anomalous situation of adjudicators routinely appealing adverse decisions – Writ appeal dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 1, 5, 9, 13, 17-18, 20].

Medical Education Admissions – Admission Supervisory Committee – Nature of powers – Section 8 Act 15 of 2017 – Committee’s role includes inquiry into complaints/suo motu action and recommendations including declaration of admissions invalid – powers of Civil Court while conducting inquiry – Held: such statutory scheme indicates adjudicatory and not ministerial character – Committee’s decisions under Section 8 operate as quasi-judicial orders [Paras 9, 13, 17].

Judicial Discipline – Adjudicating authority’s locus to litigate – Proper party vs aggrieved party – Committee was arrayed as respondent in writ petition challenging its orders – Held: mere impleadment does not create duty/right in adjudicator to defend its own decision through appeal – decision may be supported/challenged by persons benefited/adversely affected or by appropriate official respondents having duty to ensure fair admissions – Committee itself cannot be appellant against setting aside of its orders [Paras 18-19].

Statutory Appeal under Section 12 Act 15 of 2017 – Practical filing as writ petitions due to procedural vacuum – Court noted administrative history: nomenclature MFA(KME) introduced, but Division Bench earlier directed return of such appeals due to absence of rules on certified copy/court-fee etc – despite 2021 Rules, appeal procedure still not provided – hence writ petitions continue to be treated as maintainable against committee orders and are rostered to Single Bench under education subject codes – However, this does not confer appellate locus on Committee as adjudicator [Paras 14-16, 18].

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed as not maintainable [Para 20].

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Allegation Not Substantiated – Appellant-husband sought dissolution of marriage under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 alleging mental and physical cruelty – Evidence adduced by appellant found to be inconsistent, contradictory, and lacking corroboration – No documentary proof produced to support allegations of cruelty – Trial court rightly found allegations to be general and unsubstantiated – Decree of divorce rightly denied [Paras 26, 45–52, 53]

Appellate Review – Standard of Perversity – Findings of Family Court Held Not Perverse – High Court held that judgment of the Family Court was based on appreciation of pleadings and evidence – No material ignored nor any irrelevant material considered – Judgment did not suffer from perversity or arbitrariness as defined by the Supreme Court in Arulvelu v. State – Appeal dismissed [Paras 28–30, 55–57]

Cruelty – Definition and Scope – Legal Test for Matrimonial Cruelty – Reiterated that cruelty must be grave, weighty and more than ordinary wear and tear of married life – Allegations must be specific and substantiated – Mere temperamental incompatibility or trivial disputes do not amount to cruelty – Principles from Dastane v. Dastane, Shobha Rani, Bhagat v. Bhagat and Joydeep Majumdar discussed and applied [Paras 33–42]

Evidence – Contradictory Statements – Husband’s Chief and Cross-Examination Contradicted – Appellant’s own testimony inconsistent regarding period of alleged cruelty and cohabitation – Testimony of witnesses (including mother and neighbours) found contradictory and tutored – Documentary evidence (photographs, police complaints) filed by respondent-wife supported her case [Paras 44–54]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decree passed by Family Court upheld – No perversity or legal error found – No interference warranted [Paras 58–59]

Anticipatory Bail – Matrimonial Offences – Serious Allegations of Sexual and Physical Cruelty – Application under Section 482 BNSS seeking anticipatory bail in FIR alleging dowry harassment, physical assault, sexual abuse including unnatural sex and attempted burning with cigarettes – Allegations spanning over two years of matrimonial relationship – Held: Case not a simple matrimonial dispute but involves grave and serious allegations warranting custodial interrogation [Paras 18–20].

Anticipatory Bail – Delay in FIR – Explanation Acceptable in Sexual Offences – FIR lodged after considerable delay – Explanation that complainant was traumatised, socially stigmatized and earlier attempts to lodge FIR were refused by police – Held: Delay in lodging FIR in cases involving sexual abuse and matrimonial cruelty is not fatal and does not discredit the prosecution case at the bail stage [Paras 12–13].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity – Recovery of Electronic and Physical Evidence – Allegations that accused possessed intimate photographs, hard disks, jewellery (streedhan), personal documents and electronic devices belonging to complainant – Held: Custodial interrogation necessary to recover crucial evidence, uncover full extent of offence and prevent tampering or misuse of sensitive material [Paras 14, 27–30].

Anticipatory Bail – WhatsApp Chats and Electronic Evidence – Prima Facie Assessment – WhatsApp communications containing abusive language, threats and intimidation relied upon by prosecution – Report under Section 65-B Evidence Act collected during investigation certifying genuineness of electronic evidence – Held: At anticipatory bail stage, Court can prima facie look into electronic material to assess gravity and necessity of custodial interrogation without conducting a mini-trial [Paras 15, 18].

Anticipatory Bail – Marital Consent – Bodily Autonomy of Spouse – Court observed that marriage does not imply automatic or perpetual sexual consent – Non-consensual and unnatural sexual acts within marriage cause physical and mental trauma and constitute grave offences – Held: Allegations of sexual assault within marriage cannot be trivialized at the stage of anticipatory bail [Paras 19–20].

Anticipatory Bail – Balance Between Personal Liberty and Societal Interest – While personal liberty is important, Court must consider seriousness of offence, societal impact, likelihood of repetition and need for fair investigation – No special or compelling circumstances shown to justify pre-arrest protection – Held: Grant of anticipatory bail at initial stage likely to hamper investigation [Paras 21–29].

Decision – Application rejected – Anticipatory bail declined – Trial court order upheld – Clarified that observations confined to bail stage and shall not prejudice regular bail or trial on merits [Paras 30–31].

Rent Law – SCC Eviction Decree – Ex-Parte Proceeding – Substitution of Legal Representatives – No Fresh Summons Required – Under Order XXII Rule 4(4) CPC, where a suit is already proceeding ex-parte against the original defendant and the defendant dies, the court is not obliged to substitute the legal representatives and the decree may be passed against the original defendant notwithstanding death – In the present case, the original tenant Ram Bharose Verma did not appear despite service of summons and the suit was ordered to proceed ex-parte on 10.12.2012 – He died on 27.01.2013 – Notices on the substitution application were served by refusal and heirs were substituted – Held: Since the suit was already proceeding ex-parte, there was no necessity of issuing fresh summons to the substituted heirs after substitution – Ex-parte judgment and decree dated 16.09.2013 is not a nullity for non-issuance of fresh summons to substituted heirs [Paras 15–17].

Executing Court – Cannot Go Behind the Decree – Section 47 CPC – Objections Regarding Validity of Summons and Power of Attorney – Held: The executing court cannot go behind the decree and examine facts recorded or satisfaction recorded by the trial court in the ex-parte judgment or in orders passed during the suit – Whether summons were properly served on the original defendant was recorded in the order dated 10.12.2012 and the same was not challenged by way of revision – The plea regarding suit being filed through power of attorney holder and notice being given by the landlord personally are matters which go behind the decree and cannot be examined under Section 47 CPC [Paras 9, 25].

Tenancy – Death of Original Tenant – Heirs as Joint Tenants – Decree Binding on All – Section 3(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 – Upon death of tenant in respect of a residential building, only such heirs as normally resided with him at the time of death succeed as tenants – Held: There was no averment in the petition that petitioner No. 2 was normally residing with the deceased original tenant Ram Bharose Verma at the time of his death and, therefore, it is not made out that she became a tenant entitled to be separately substituted – Further, the heirs of a deceased tenant inherit as joint tenants and not as tenants-in-common and notice to one is sufficient notice to all – Any defect in service of notice on one of the joint tenants would not make a decree passed against all joint tenants a nullity when notices were served on the other joint tenants [Paras 19–24].

Typographical Error in Name – Section 152 CPC – Decree Not Rendered Nullity – The name of petitioner No. 2 was mentioned as "Heena Verma" in the substitution application whereas her name is "Hema Verma" – The trial court held this to be a typographical error and corrected the same under Section 152 CPC – Held: A mere error in spelling of the name does not affect the validity of the decree when notices were duly served on the heirs of the deceased tenant and they had full knowledge of the proceedings [Paras 18, 12].

Impleadment of Courts as Opposite Parties – Deprecated Practice – The petitioners had impleaded the Additional District Judge-XII and the Judge Small Causes Court as opposite parties – Held: The practice of impleading courts as opposite parties has been deprecated by the Supreme Court – Courts neither defend their orders before superior courts nor do they contest proceedings – Records can be called for without impleading the court or presiding officer as a party [Paras 4–5].

Decision: Petition dismissed at admission stage.

Commercial Law – Rejection of Plaint – Compliance with Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act – Suit filed on 31st July 2021, registered on 18th December 2021 – High Court had declared Section 12-A mandatory on 1st October 2021 in Deepak Raheja – Held: Since suit was filed prior to that date, plaint cannot be rejected for non-compliance with Section 12-A – Filing of suit is relevant date for determining compliance, not registration [Paras 8, 22(a)-(b), 31].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – No Cause of Action – Plaint alleges plaintiffs were beneficiaries under Master Restructuring Agreement (MRA) and Trust and Retention Account (TRA) agreements – Defendant no. 1 (SBI) was account bank and allegedly withheld funds due to plaintiffs – Suit also based on representations made in Joint Lenders Forum meetings – Held: Cause of action adequately pleaded; whether it is illusory or defective is a matter for trial – Rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) not warranted [Paras 23–29].

Limitation – Recovery Suit – Article 113 of Limitation Act – Plaintiffs claim right to sue accrued only upon discovery of facts on 21st May 2019 via NCLT proceedings – Suit filed on 31st July 2021 – Held: Cause of action within limitation as pleaded; limitation involves mixed question of fact and law to be determined at trial stage [Paras 30, 22(k), 29].

Mediation – Validity of Private Mediation – Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act read with 2018 Rules – Pre-litigation mediation attempted privately and failed – Held: Although private mediation does not fulfil mandatory requirement under Section 12-A, since suit was filed before Section 12-A was declared mandatory, rejection not warranted on this ground [Paras 5(a)-(b), 22(c), 31].

Practice and Procedure – Abuse of Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Court discourages frivolous applications for rejection of plaint that delay commercial suits – Reiterates power to reject plaint must be used sparingly and only when clear grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are satisfied [Para 32].

Decision: Application rejected – None of the grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC satisfied – Suit to proceed to trial [Para 33].

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Husband alleged wife was quarrelsome, threatened to poison his blind parents, took his ATM card and money, and deserted him – Evidence led by husband found to be uncorroborated and lacking documentary support – In contrast, wife produced uncontroverted oral and documentary evidence including cybercrime and police complaints against the husband for uploading semi-nude images, digital abuse, and dowry-related harassment – Held: Cruelty not established by husband – Instead, cruelty by husband proved based on wife’s credible evidence [Paras 20, 40-44]

Family Law – Divorce – Desertion – Allegation by husband that wife deserted him since 19.05.2020 – Wife demonstrated she left due to cruelty, threats, and unsafe environment – Evidence showed she was compelled to leave due to abuse – Held: No voluntary or unjustified desertion by wife – Desertion not proved – Section 23(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act applied – Husband cannot take benefit of his own wrongdoing [Paras 33-37, 45-49]

Family Law – Perversity of Judgment – Husband claimed judgment of Family Court was perverse – High Court held trial court considered evidence thoroughly including respondent's uncontroverted witnesses and criminal proceedings substantiating her case – Held: No perversity or legal error – Family Court’s findings well-supported – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-22, 51-52]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Divorce denied – Judgment of Family Court upheld – No proof of cruelty or desertion by wife – Pending interlocutory applications also disposed of