Bail – Economic Offences – AP Liquor Scam – Rs.3,500 Crore – Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Accused Nos.8, 35 and 36 sought regular bail in connection with alleged large-scale irregularities in Andhra Pradesh excise policy and APSBCL functioning – Accused No.8 alleged to be an Operations Commander managing kickback collections, coercing distilleries, and facilitating laundering of funds abroad – Accused Nos.35 and 36 alleged to have organised and supervised logistics of cash transportation to influence the AP General Elections 2024 – Held: Gravity of offence alone cannot be the sole ground to deny bail where investigation is substantially complete and accused have been in prolonged custody – All three Petitioners entitled to bail subject to stringent conditions [Paras 3, 4, 5, 22, 26].

Bail – Principles Governing Grant – Economic Offences – Factors to be Considered – Court reiterated that considerations for grant of bail include: nature and severity of accusation; reasonable apprehension of witness tampering; likelihood of abscondence; character and standing of accused; and larger public interest – Economic offences constitute a class apart warranting cautious approach, particularly for alleged kingpins, given their impact on national financial health and societal fabric – However, even in grave economic offences, bail is not to be denied as an absolute rule; each case must be decided on its own facts [Paras 15, 16, 17].

Successive Bail Applications – Change in Circumstances – Prolonged Pre-Trial Custody – Article 21 – Charge sheet having been filed and investigation being substantially complete as against the Petitioners, continued pre-trial incarceration without commencement of trial was found to infringe the right to personal liberty under Article 21 – Filing of charge sheet, prolonged custody, and absence of material indicating risk of abscondence or interference with trial constitute sufficient changed circumstances to justify grant of bail in successive applications [Paras 19, 21, 24, 26].

Parity – Co-Accused – Bail Not an Absolute Claim – Principle of Parity – Accused No.38, alleged to be closely connected with Petitioners/Accused Nos.35 and 36, had already been granted bail – Other co-accused similarly placed in terms of allegations were also enlarged on bail – Held: Parity is not an absolute right and applies only where roles are similar; however, in the absence of material distinction justifying differential treatment, continued detention of the Petitioners was not warranted – Parity is focused on the role of the accused in the commission of the crime, not merely on the thread of the same offence [Paras 20, 25].

Bail Conditions – Stringent Safeguards – Upon grant of bail, the Petitioners directed to: execute personal bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties; surrender passports; not leave India without Court's permission; report to Investigating Officer every Saturday; not contact prosecution witnesses or co-accused; disclose all movable and immovable properties within two weeks; not alienate properties identified by prosecution; not publish or disseminate information about the crime till conclusion of trial; and furnish active mobile numbers to the Investigating Agency [Para 27].

Decision: Criminal Petition Nos. 13503 & 13504 of 2025 and 27 of 2026 allowed – Petitioners/Accused Nos. 8, 35 and 36 directed to be released on bail subject to stringent conditions – Observations in the order not to be construed as opinion on the merits of the crime.

Land Law – Grama Natham – Nature of land – Village habitation site – Whether vesting in Government – Held: Grama natham refers to village house sites historically set apart for habitation of villagers and not agricultural or communal lands – Lands occupied as house sites never vested with the Government [Paras 5–7, 27–33].

Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 – Scope – Government property – Applicability to grama natham – Section 2 excludes lands owned as house sites or backyards – Held: Government cannot invoke provisions of the Act to evict persons occupying grama natham lands used as house sites [Paras 16–21, 50].

Land Law – Occupied Grama Natham – Ownership – Rights of occupier – Longstanding possession of village habitation sites confers possessory and proprietary rights in favour of occupants – Such lands cannot be treated as Government lands merely because revenue records describe them as “natham poromboke” [Paras 32–34].

Revenue Records – A-Register and Settlement Register – Evidentiary value – Entries in revenue records regarding classification of land do not determine title – Revenue classification alone cannot divest the possessory rights of occupants of grama natham lands [Paras 32–34].

Judicial Precedent – Conflicting Division Bench judgments – Full Bench reference – Earlier decision in S. Anbananthan (2024) holding that grama natham lands vest with Government held to be incorrect and overruled [Paras 35–40, 49].

Land Law – Categories of Grama Natham – Identified as three types: (i) inhabited house sites belonging to occupants, (ii) communal/public portions such as streets or threshing floors, and (iii) unoccupied natham lands which Government may regulate or assign – Government authority exists only over unoccupied portions [Para 34].

Interpretation – Historical concept of property – Occupation as source of ownership – Longstanding occupation of village habitation sites recognized as basis of proprietary rights [Paras 53–57].

Dissent (Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan)

Land Law – Natham lands – Vesting – Held (dissent): All natham lands, including occupied lands, vest with the Government under the Tamil Nadu land reform statutes and constitute communal lands – Government may invoke the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 against encroachers [Paras 114–128].

Revenue Records – A-Register – Entries in remarks column describing land as natham cannot confer ownership – Ownership determined by statutory vesting provisions under land reform laws [Paras 129–135].

Ratio (Majority): Occupied grama natham lands do not vest with the Government, and therefore the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 cannot be invoked to evict occupants of such lands.

Decision: Reference answered in favour of occupants – Held that occupied grama natham lands do not vest with the Government and Land Encroachment Act cannot be invoked for eviction. Matters directed to be placed before appropriate benches for disposal in light of the Full Bench ruling.

Succession Law – Letters of Administration De-Bonis-Non – Sections 258 & 259 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Dispensation Upheld – When an application is made under Sections 258 and 259, a Probate already exists in respect of the Will, and all objections from next of kin would have been considered at the stage of the original grant – In such circumstances, fresh citation to next of kin can be dispensed with – Court held that Order dated 21.08.2009 dispensing with service of citation was correct and valid – Appellant Nandu had previously withdrawn his Caveat and signed a letter to the Prothonotary confirming the Will and consenting to Probate – Held: Service of citation in a Section 258-259 petition is not mandatory where next of kin had already consented or withdrawn their caveats at the original grant stage [Paras 36-39]

Rule 397, Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules – Applicability – Distinguished – Rule 397 mandates notice to all heirs and next of kin except those who have filed consent affidavits – However, this Rule in the context of Section 259 applies to the original grant and not to a subsequent petition for Letters of Administration De-Bonis-Non where Probate has already been granted after due consideration of objections – Reliance by Appellant on Pooja Deepak Patil vs. Savita Vasantrao Patil, (2018) SCC OnLine Bom 3879 held to be distinguishable as that case related to an original Probate grant, not a Section 258-259 application [Paras 33-34, 41-42]

Revocation of Probate – Delay – Miscellaneous Petition Dismissed – Appellant claimed knowledge of T&IJ Petition No.445 of 2008 and the Letters of Administration De-Bonis-Non grant only a few months before filing the Misc. Petition in 2017-18 – Court rejected this claim noting that public notices were issued in three newspapers in June 2010, five registered Deeds of Transfer were executed in June 2010, sons of Vijay had responded to the public notice in July 2010, and Pratap had adopted proceedings in Suit No.438 of 1951 setting out the grant – Alleged harassment by Pratap and sons being young held to be unsupported by evidence and not valid grounds for delay – Held: Miscellaneous Petition was correctly dismissed on the ground of delay [Paras 43-47]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order dated 19.08.2019 (as corrected by Order dated 05.09.2019) dismissing Miscellaneous Petition No.18 of 2018 upheld – Order dated 21.08.2009 dispensing with service of citation in T&IJ Petition No.445 of 2008 upheld – No order as to costs

Hindu Succession – Female Intestate – Reversion to Husband's Heirs – Section 15(2)(b) – Compromise Decree – Registration – Adoption – RSA 3913 of 2003 Allowed, RSA 1227 of 2010 Dismissed – Property inherited by a widow from her husband devolves upon heirs of the husband in absence of issue – Kamla Devi, admittedly unrelated and not legally adopted, held not entitled to property – Decree in her favour being a transfer to a stranger without pre-existing right was void for want of registration – Plaintiff, as surviving brother of the deceased husband Multan Singh, held entitled under Section 15(2)(b) – In contrast, decree in favour of Chand Singh, real nephew of Smt. Sona Devi having a possible succession claim, construed as a bona fide family settlement not requiring compulsory registration – RSA 3913 of 2003 allowed; RSA 1227 of 2010 dismissed [Paras 11–25].

Adoption – Hindu Law – Proof Required – No Legal Status Without Ceremony – Admission of Defendant Fatal – Adoption under Hindu law requires strict compliance with mandatory requirements including ceremony of giving and taking – Mere upbringing or treatment as daughter, or description as daughter in marriage invitation card, insufficient to confer legal status of adopted child – Defendant admitted no adoption ceremony took place – Held: Plea of adoption wholly untenable [Para 14].

Compromise Decree – Registration – Fresh Rights in Immovable Property – Stranger vs. Family Member – Distinction – Decree creating fresh rights in immovable property in favour of a person with no antecedent or pre-existing right requires compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 – Exception for family settlements under Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation applies only to persons having antecedent title or even a possible claim – Unregistered decree in favour of a stranger conveys no valid title – Decree in favour of a blood relative with possible succession claim falls within family settlement exception and is valid without registration [Paras 15–23].

Decision: RSA No. 3913 of 2003 – Allowed – Judgments and decrees of Courts below set aside – Suit of plaintiff decreed – Plaintiff held entitled to one-half share in total holding – RSA No. 1227 of 2010 – Dismissed – Decree in favour of Chand Singh upheld.

Criminal Law – Bigamy – Matrimonial Cruelty – Quashing – Petitioner prosecuted under Sections 494 and 498A IPC on the basis of a cohabitation alleged to be a marriage, entered into by signing a non-judicial stamp paper without performance of any customary rites – Complainant subsequently alleged a 'temple marriage' during investigation, contradicting her own FIR – High Court holds that a contractual union on stamp paper is a legal nullity under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and in the absence of a legally solemnized first marriage, prosecution for bigamy and cruelty cannot be sustained – Inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoked to quash proceedings – Held: FIR and criminal proceedings quashed; petitioner discharged [Paras 2–22].

"Contractual Marriage on Stamp Paper – Legal Nullity Under Hindu Law"

Hindu Marriage – Solemnization – Sections 5 and 7, HMA – A union purportedly entered into by the execution of signatures on a non-judicial stamp paper, without performance of customary rites and ceremonies including the Saptapadi, is not a legally valid marriage under Hindu Law – Such a 'contractual marriage' is a legal nullity and lacks the essential form required to create the status of spouse – Held: A stamp paper cannot be accorded the sanctity of the Saptapadi [Paras 12–13].

"Bigamy – Strict Proof of First Marriage Mandatory"

Bigamy – Section 494 IPC – Requirement of Solemnization – The word 'marries' in Section 494 IPC implies a marriage celebrated with proper ceremonies in the legal sense – Prosecution for bigamy cannot be sustained unless the foundational first marriage was duly solemnized – Where the complainant herself described the first union as a 'contractual' one based on stamp paper, the essential ingredient of solemnization is absent, rendering the charge of bigamy a legal impossibility – Relied on: Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 1564 [Para 14].

"Matrimonial Cruelty – Status of Husband Cannot Attach to a Void Union"

Matrimonial Cruelty – Section 498A IPC – 'Husband' – A legally non-existent union ab initio cannot clothe a party with the status of 'husband' for the purpose of penal liability under Section 498A IPC – Distinction drawn between a marriage that is technically void (where ceremonies were performed but a legal disability existed) and a union that lacks any legal existence from the outset – The broad interpretation of 'husband' in Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam, (2004) 3 SCC 199 applies to the former category and cannot be extended to a relationship where the complainant's own version discloses no form of legal recognition – Held: Section 498A IPC not attracted [Paras 15–17].

"Shifting Case – Temple Marriage Version Introduced During Investigation"

Criminal Proceedings – Integrity of FIR – Afterthought – The introduction of a 'temple marriage' version in witness statements recorded during investigation, in direct contradiction to the 'stamp paper' marriage described in the foundational FIR, constitutes a transparent attempt to cure a fatal legal infirmity – Such an afterthought fails to inspire confidence and cannot be permitted to transform a contractual convenience into a sacramental solemnity – The FIR carries the seed of its own destruction [Paras 6, 18–19].

"Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Inherent Power to Quash Proceedings Destined to Fail"

Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – The inherent power of the High Court is designed to nip in the bud a prosecution that is destined to fail due to a fundamental legal infirmity – Where the very inception of the alleged marital relationship is legally non-existent, compelling the accused to undergo a criminal trial would be a manifest failure of justice – Criminal machinery cannot be utilized to validate a relationship which personal law expressly refuses to recognize – Liberty reserved to complainant to seek remedies under PWDVA or civil law [Paras 1, 19–22].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Proceeding in G.R. Case No. 5501 of 2014 arising out of Baruipur P.S. Case No. 1427 dated 27.09.2014 quashed and set aside – Petitioner Deep Dey discharged and bail bonds cancelled – De-facto complainant granted liberty to seek remedies under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 or other civil/quasi-criminal provisions available to persons in a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' – No order as to costs [Paras 22–25].

Land Acquisition – Deemed Lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – Applicability – Petitioners contended that though award was passed in 2002 and compensation paid, they continued in possession of the land for more than 12 years and therefore acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – Respondents established that possession had been taken in 2005 through proceedings of Mandal Revenue Officer and mutation was effected in revenue records – Held: Once possession is taken and compensation tendered, acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) – Petitioners cannot claim fresh acquisition under the 2013 Act [Paras 20-27].

Effect of Constitution Bench Decision – Section 24(2) Interpretation – Petitioners relied on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki to argue lapse of acquisition – Court held that the said decision has been expressly overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal – Deemed lapse occurs only where both conditions are satisfied, namely possession not taken and compensation not paid – Therefore reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation is misplaced [Paras 24-27].

Land Acquisition – Vesting of Land in State – Effect of Possession and Compensation – After passing of award and taking possession under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land vests absolutely in the State – Even if landowners subsequently remain in physical occupation, such possession is illegal and unauthorized and does not confer any legal right to reclaim the land [Paras 22, 28-30].

Encroachment on Acquired Land – No Right to Claim Restoration – Petitioners allegedly re-entered the buffer zone of the mining area years after acquisition and compensation – Such occupation amounts to encroachment and cannot create any enforceable right to retain possession or demand reacquisition of land [Paras 22, 30].

Land Acquisition – Section 24(2) – No Revival of Concluded Proceedings – Section 24 of the 2013 Act does not revive stale or concluded acquisition proceedings and cannot be invoked to reopen acquisitions that were completed long before the commencement of the 2013 Act [Paras 26-27].

Decision:

Batch of writ petitions dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to claim lapse of acquisition or protection of possession – Acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 held valid – Eviction action by authorities upheld – No order as to costs.

Mining Law – Quarry Lease – Validity of Lease – Earlier Lease Held Invalid – Claim for Renewal/Extension – Quarry lease granted in favour of partner of petitioner firm (Vivek Exports) pursuant to Government Order relaxing Rule 3A of KMMC Rules – Said Government Order subsequently quashed by High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court – Earlier writ proceedings had already held that renewal of lease granted in favour of Vivek Exports was implicitly invalid and not a subsisting valid lease – Said finding attained finality after dismissal of appeal before Supreme Court – Held: Petitioner cannot claim extension or statutory renewal under amended rules on the basis of an invalid lease – Endorsement rejecting request for extension justified [Paras 13-20].

Mining Lease – Statutory Extension under KMMC (Amendment) Rules – Applicability – Petitioner sought extension of quarry lease up to 30 years under Rule 8A(2) of KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2016 and further relied on KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2023 providing deemed lease period of 50 years – Court held that such statutory extension presupposes existence of a valid subsisting lease – Since the lease itself was declared invalid by earlier judicial orders that attained finality, benefit of statutory extension cannot be invoked [Paras 16-20].

Writ Jurisdiction – Delay and Laches – Challenge after Seven Years – Petitioner challenged endorsement rejecting its claim after nearly seven years – Explanation offered regarding illness and misunderstanding regarding subsisting lease was unsupported by material – Held: Inordinate delay without satisfactory explanation is a sufficient ground to reject writ petition in addition to lack of merits [Paras 21-22].

Quarry Lease Application – Pending Application – Effect of Amendments to KMMC Rules – Application for quarry lease filed by KUM Internationals in 2008 was rejected on ground that applied area overlapped with existing lease – After earlier proceedings held the existing lease invalid and directed reconsideration, authorities rejected application citing Rule 8B of KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2016 and absence of NOCs from other departments – Held: Since application had been pending since 2010 and previous court orders directed consideration, rejection on ground that NOCs were not received prior to 12.08.2016 was unjustified – Responsibility to obtain NOCs primarily lies with authorities [Paras 28-33].

Mining Law – Responsibility for Obtaining NOCs – Role of Authorities – Under Rule 8(5) of the KMMC Rules (prior to later amendment), the duty to seek NOCs from other departments rested on the Senior Geologist/competent authority – Applicant could only facilitate the process – Authorities cannot reject application solely for non-receipt of NOCs when such process was within their control [Paras 32-34].

Effect of KMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2023 – Amendment revived eligibility of applications filed prior to the 2016 Rules – Considering the earlier judicial directions and the amendment restoring eligibility, application of KUM for quarry lease over notified 5 acres deserved consideration and grant [Paras 30-31].

Decision:

Writ Petition No.2922/2023 (filed by Vivek Exports) dismissed – Claim for extension/renewal of quarry lease rejected.

Writ Petition No.10370/2022 (filed by KUM Internationals) allowed – Endorsement dated 10.12.2020 rejecting application quashed – Authorities directed to issue necessary notification and execute quarry lease deed in favour of KUM for the notified area within four weeks.

Education Law – Unfair Means in Examination – Possession of Mobile Phone – CBSE Guidelines – The respondent student appearing for Class XII examination was found carrying a mobile phone inside the examination hall – Though no incriminating material relating to the examination was found and the phone was not used for copying, the CBSE Unfair Means Committee placed the case under Category-3 and imposed penalty of cancellation of current as well as next year’s examination in all subjects – Single Judge set aside the penalty relying on parity with earlier decision and extended benefit of doubt – Division Bench held that after the 139th Governing Body Meeting dated 24.06.2024, possession of a mobile phone itself has been specifically included in Category-3 attracting stringent penalty – Courts cannot dilute or read down guidelines framed and ratified by an expert body in academic matters – Held: Mere non-use of the phone is irrelevant once possession inside the examination centre is established – Single Judge’s order unsustainable [Paras 24-31].

Judicial Review – Academic/Expert Decisions – Scope of Interference – Guidelines regarding Unfair Means were framed after deliberation by the Examination Committee and ratified by the CBSE Governing Body – The categorisation placing possession of mobile phones in Category-3 with severe penalty was a conscious policy decision to prevent leakage of question papers and misuse of electronic devices – Held: Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot substitute their opinion for that of an expert body or dilute such policy unless manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional [Paras 24-31].

Parity with Earlier Judgments – Applicability – Single Judge relied on decision in *Shuchi Mishra* where penalty for possession of mobile phone was set aside – Division Bench held that the said case arose prior to issuance of revised UFM guidelines and categorisation introduced later – Hence, the doctrine of parity was inapplicable to the present case governed by the amended rules [Paras 22-23].

Unfair Means Committee – Findings – The committee recorded that the student admitted possession of the mobile phone though it was not used for copying – Evidence included mobile phone, statements of invigilator, observer and student – Based on the revised guidelines, the competent authority imposed Category-3 penalty – Held: Action of CBSE was in accordance with the governing guidelines and cannot be interfered with merely on sympathetic considerations [Paras 19, 26-30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of the Single Judge dated 23.08.2025 in W.P. No.16511/2025 set aside – Penalty imposed by CBSE cancelling the current as well as next year’s examination in all subjects upheld – All pending applications disposed of.

Labour Law – Unfair Labour Practice – Temporary Employees – Denial of Permanency – Petitioners employed as clerks and peons by District Central Co-operative Bank continued on temporary basis for more than a decade despite performing work of permanent and perennial nature – Industrial Court dismissed complaints solely on ground that staffing pattern of the Bank had not been approved – Evidence on record showed that petitioners were appointed against vacant posts, worked continuously without termination, PF contributions were deducted and deposited, and duties were identical to those performed by permanent employees – Bank admitted existence of substantial manpower shortage and perennial nature of work – Held: Continuation of employees as temporary for prolonged period despite existence of vacancies constitutes unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act – Industrial Court erred in ignoring admissions and evidence on record – Impugned award set aside [Paras 28–37, 63–67].

Unfair Labour Practice – Discrimination in Service Conditions – Petitioners paid consolidated wages of Rs.6000–9000 and denied allowances, leave benefits, promotions and other privileges available to permanent employees performing identical work – Bank admitted denial of benefits solely on ground of temporary status – Held: Differential treatment without justification amounts to discrimination attracting Item 5 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act [Paras 5–6, 65–67].

Banking Regulation – NABARD Guidelines – Nature and Binding Effect – Bank relied on NABARD communications and guidelines regarding staffing pattern and recruitment policy claiming that absence of sanctioned staffing pattern prevented regularisation – Court held that Section 35 of the Banking Regulation Act empowers inspection and supervisory functions but does not confer authority on NABARD to issue binding directions regarding staffing pattern or service regularisation – Such communications are advisory and do not have statutory force unless backed by specific statutory provision or rule [Paras 39–44].

Co-operative Societies – Power of State Government – Section 79A of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act – Statutory directions regarding management and administration of co-operative societies including staffing pattern can be issued only by State Government under Section 79A – Such directions acquire binding force only when issued in writing upon satisfaction that they are necessary in public interest or for proper management – In absence of any such order on record, employer cannot rely on alleged restriction to deny permanency [Paras 45–52].

Regularisation – Principle under MRTU & PULP Act – Reliance on Supreme Court decision in Casteribe – Industrial and Labour Courts empowered to grant appropriate relief including permanency where employees are deliberately continued on temporary status for years to deny benefits attached to permanent employment – Relief not based merely on long service but on proof of unfair labour practice – Where work is perennial, vacancies exist and employees are continued for years, denial of permanency amounts to unfair labour practice [Paras 55–58].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Judgment and Award dated 20 May 2022 passed by Industrial Court, Nashik quashed and set aside – Respondent Bank held to have engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act – Bank directed to undertake exercise of regularisation of petitioners against available vacant posts within twelve weeks subject to verification of eligibility – Eligible petitioners to be granted permanency with continuity of service – Regular pay scale and benefits to be granted prospectively from date of regularisation – Bank restrained from terminating petitioners till completion of exercise – Request for stay rejected.