Slum Areas – De-notification of Acquired Land – Legality – Petitioner’s land declared as slum in 1976 and later acquired under Section 17 of the Karnataka Slum Areas Act – Respondents issued possession certificates and began rehabilitation projects – State later de-notified the land citing financial burden and lack of finance department approval – Held: Once land is acquired and vests under Section 18, it cannot be de-notified under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act – De-notification is impermissible and ultra vires [Paras 21-29, 38-40]

Land Acquisition – Possession and Compensation – Petitioner, though having executed Power of Attorney and sale agreement, retained ownership as there was no registered transfer – Possession taken under Government Notification dated 18.10.2004 and confirmed by Slum Board through possession certificates – Held: Possession lawfully taken, petitioner's title not extinguished by mere PoA or agreement to sell – Compensation payable under Section 20 [Paras 24-30, 36]

Constitutional Law – Right to Property and Life – Article 300-A and Article 21 – State’s action in occupying private land without compensation and attempting withdrawal of acquisition contrary to law – Held: Property rights cannot be extinguished without compensation – Financial constraints cannot justify breach of constitutional obligations – Right to shelter of slum dwellers must be balanced with property rights of landowners [Paras 19-23, 31-35]

Statutory Interpretation – General Clauses Act vis-à-vis Special Act – Respondents’ reliance on Section 21 of General Clauses Act to cancel acquisition under Slum Act rejected – Slum Act has no provision for withdrawal once land vests with State – General Clauses Act cannot override specific acquisition provisions [Paras 25-27, 39-40]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – De-notification quashed – State directed to determine and pay compensation to petitioner within 12 weeks with applicable interest – Directions affirmed by earlier coordinate bench and upheld by Division Bench in W.A. No.100107/2025 [Paras 8, 31, 43-44]

Property Law – Partition Suit – Effect of Previous Litigation – Interpretation of Decree – Appellants (Plaintiffs) sought partition of joint property claiming half share – Respondent (Defendant) contended that Appellants lost rights due to failure to pay Rs. 5,300/- as ordered in a previous Second Appeal (S.A. No. 641 of 1988) – First Appellate Court dismissed the partition suit on grounds of non-compliance with the previous decree – High Court held that the previous decree only created a charge on the property for the amount due and did not extinguish the Appellants' title – The previous judgment clarified that title would not pass without a registered relinquishment deed, which was never executed – Held: First Appellate Court misconstrued the clauses of the earlier decree; the remedy for Respondent was execution/auction, not denial of partition – Plaintiffs entitled to partition [Paras 15-18, 20].

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Oral Agreement – Respondent claimed an oral agreement existed wherein Appellants agreed to sell their share for Rs. 1,00,000/- – No evidence produced to substantiate the oral agreement – High Court found that the First Appellate Court erred by reversing the Trial Court’s decree without proper appreciation of evidence – High Court noted that Appellants had eventually deposited the requisite amount with the Trial Court – Findings of the First Appellate Court were vitiated by misinterpretation of documentary evidence (Ex. A-1) – Interference under Section 100 CPC justified when findings are perverse or based on misconstruction of documents [Paras 14, 19-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court (decreeing the suit for partition) restored – Each party to bear their own costs.

Taxation Law - Customs – Refund of Duty – Short Landing or Pilferage – Goods not received by importer – Bill of Entry filed but no Out of Charge order issued – Authorities in dispute over whether goods were short-landed or pilfered – Held: Importer entitled to refund of duty under Section 23 of Customs Act as goods were lost before clearance for home consumption – Duty paid cannot be retained when goods not delivered – Customs directed to refund duty with 9% interest [Paras 3, 4, 42–45, 50–54, 61–64] –

Administrative Law – Inter-Departmental Dispute – Customs and Port Authorities blamed each other for loss of goods – Court held importer cannot suffer due to unresolved bureaucratic dispute – Liability between public authorities kept open for separate proceedings – Importer’s substantive right to refund not to be defeated by procedural technicalities [Paras 5–6, 49, 55, 65] –

Procedural Fairness – Duty Paid without Clearance – Bill of Entry not closed – Customs insisted on closure letter which could not be obtained due to inter-agency delays – Held: Such procedural conditions cannot defeat substantive statutory entitlement to refund – Rejection of refund without adjudication is not appealable – Writ petition maintainable [Paras 14–16, 53, 56] –

Interest on Delayed Refund – Duty paid in anticipation of clearance – No goods received – Refund delayed due to inaction of authorities – Held: Interest at 9% to be paid under Section 27A of Customs Act for delay in refunding amount from date of payment till date of refund [Paras 63–64] –

Statutory Interpretation – Sections 13 & 23 of Customs Act – Pilferage vs. Loss – Whether case of pilferage under Section 13 or loss under Section 23 immaterial – Refund due in both cases where goods not cleared for home consumption – Importer not liable to bear duty [Paras 43–44, 50–52, 61] –

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Rule made absolute – Respondent No.1 directed to refund ₹35,37,358/- along with 9% interest from date of payment within 4 weeks – Compliance report to be filed by 08/01/2026 – Inter se liability between Customs and Port left open [Paras 64–66].

Service Law – Deputy Librarian – Nomenclature change under G.O. 26.12.1998 – No automatic enhancement of retirement age to 62 years – Higher pay scale wrongly granted but recovery after 17 years impermissible – Retirement at 60 upheld; recovery quashed; pension to be fixed on last pay drawn [Paras 10–16].

Service Benefits – Change of Nomenclature – Whether Retirement Age Altered – Government Order dated 26.12.1998 changed designation of Deputy Librarian (₹2000–3200) to Librarian with UGC pay scale; however, G.O. contains no provision altering age of retirement. Held: Retirement age must be strictly as per service rules; mere change of nomenclature does not alter superannuation benefits. Retirement at 60 years was valid [Paras 10–12].

Pay Scale – Eligibility – Erroneous Grant of Librarian Scale – Petitioner was in pay scale ₹1400–2300, not ₹2000–3200 as required under G.O. 26.12.1998. Therefore, grant of UGC-linked higher pay scale was factually and legally incorrect; strict interpretation of G.O. goes against petitioner [Paras 12–13].

Recovery of Excess Payment – Long Delay – No Fraud – Protection under Rafiq Masih – Although pay scale was wrongly granted, petitioner enjoyed the scale for 17 years, including revised UGC benefits, without misrepresentation. Applying State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2014) 8 SCC 883, recovery after retirement—especially after nearly two decades—is inequitable and impermissible. Held: Recovery order unsustainable [Paras 14–15].

Retirement Age Claim – Rejection Justified – Since petitioner never received a valid promotion to Librarian post and G.O. does not regulate retirement age, claim to work till 62 years is untenable. Petitioner had already crossed 62 during litigation; no relief could be granted [Paras 3–7, 11–12].

Final Relief – Partial Allowance – Prayer to extend service till 62 years rejected; however, respondents restrained from recovering any amount paid under higher pay scale. Pension to be calculated on basis of last pay actually drawn (higher pay scale) and not on pre-2001 scale. Impugned recovery orders set aside [Para 16].

Service Law – Displacement Quota – Employment – G.O.Ms.No.98 – Delay in Application – Writ petitioner, son of displaced person from Dachuru village, filed application for employment 10 years after displacement – Rejection of claim by authorities citing limitation of one year under G.O.Ms.No.98 – Held: One-year limitation cannot be strictly enforced in light of settled precedents and State policy – Authorities directed to include petitioner in the first seniority list based on eligibility – Petitioner entitled to appointment as per turn under displacement quota [Paras 4, 8(I), 10, 11].

Administrative Law – Seniority List – Violation of Natural Justice – Second seniority list of 106 displaced persons was set aside by the learned single Judge without impleading affected parties – Held: Order is unsustainable being passed in violation of principles of natural justice – Affected candidates were not heard – Order set aside – Government Memo restoring second seniority list reinstated – Beneficiaries of the second list directed to be provided employment as per their turn [Paras 6, 8(III), 10(i)].

Displacement & Rehabilitation – Seniority Classification – Two-tier seniority system maintained for displaced persons based on actual submergence and displacement – Dachuru village formed part of the first list where water impoundment and displacement occurred in 2005 – Petitioner wrongly sought inclusion in second list instead of first – Court clarified distinction between lists and corrected placement accordingly [Paras 5, 8(II), 11].

Precedent – Relaxation of Time Limit – High Court reaffirmed position laid down in earlier judgment State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rajola Jagannadha Reddy, W.A. No. 356 of 2023 – One-year application time under G.O.Ms.No.98 is not mandatory – Policy aims at livelihood protection and must be interpreted liberally for displaced families [Paras 8(I)(c)-(d)].

Decision:

Writ Appeal No. 315 of 2024 allowed – Order of single Judge dated 05.01.2023 set aside – Government Memo dated 26.12.2014 approving second seniority list restored – Authorities directed to provide employment to appellants as per their turn under G.O.Ms.No.98 [Para 10(i)-(ii)].

Writ Appeal No. 1289 of 2023 disposed of – Authorities directed to include writ petitioner’s name in the first seniority list, not the second – Employment to be provided as per eligibility and turn under displacement quota [Para 11].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Presumption under Section 113A and 304B IPC – Suicide within 7 Years of Marriage – No Proof of Cruelty or Dowry Demand – Presumption Not Attracted – Deceased committed suicide by consuming Celphos poison within 7 years of marriage – No specific, consistent, or credible evidence of cruelty or dowry demand – Presumption under Section 113A or 113B of Evidence Act not attracted – Conviction under Sections 304B or 306 IPC not sustainable [Paras 10, 14, 15, 39, 41].

Evidence Act – Section 113A – Abetment of Suicide – Discretionary Presumption – Requires Proof of Cruelty – Not Automatic on Death Within 7 Years of Marriage – Prosecution failed to establish cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC – No proximity between alleged cruelty and suicide – Presumption under Section 113A is rebuttable and not mandatory – Not invoked in absence of foundational facts [Paras 12–14, 25].

IPC Section 498A – Cruelty – Mere Allegations Insufficient – No Specific Instances or Corroboration – Domestic Quarrels Do Not Constitute Offence – Allegations of quarrels and occasional disputes unsupported by specific dates, evidence or consistent witness testimony – General wear and tear of matrimonial life not cruelty under Section 498A IPC – Trial court’s finding of no cruelty upheld [Paras 16–20, 24, 25, 40].

IPC Section 306 – Abetment of Suicide – No Instigation or Intentional Aiding Proven – Suicide Resulted from Trivial Domestic Disagreement – No Evidence of Abetment – Deceased consumed poison after a minor dispute regarding going to a temple – No acts by accused showing instigation or aiding suicide – Abetment not made out under Sections 306/107 IPC [Paras 26–31, 38, 41].

Criminal Law – Sections 201, 176 IPC – Alleged Non-Reporting and Burial Without Post-Mortem – No Intent to Destroy Evidence Proven – Burial Conducted Per Religious Customs – Exhumation and Post-Mortem Later Conducted – Accused did not inform police immediately but offered explanation based on religious urgency – Body was later exhumed and PM conducted – No deliberate intention to screen offenders – Section 201 and 176 IPC not attracted [Paras 32–34, 43, 44].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Double Presumption of Innocence – View Taken by Trial Court was Plausible – No Grounds to Interfere – Trial court’s view based on appreciation of evidence – No perversity or illegality demonstrated – Appeal court should not interfere if two views are possible – Acquittal upheld [Paras 33, 35, 36, 45–48].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – No offence made out under Sections 498A, 304B, 306, 201, 176 or 114 IPC – No interference warranted in acquittal [Para 48].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Acquittal – Accused admitted signature on cheque but denied liability – Complainant presented sufficient documents including return memo, legal notice, postal proof, and reply – Trial Court acquitted the accused citing discrepancies and held complainant acted without reasonable cause – Held: Acquittal alone insufficient to invoke Section 250 CrPC – No finding of malicious prosecution – Direction to pay compensation unsustainable [Paras 10–15]

Criminal Law – Compensation to Accused under Section 250 CrPC – Setting Aside – Appellant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging that the respondent issued a cheque for ₹3,00,000/- towards repayment of a hand loan, which was dishonoured for “Insufficient Funds” – Trial Court acquitted the accused but awarded compensation of ₹25,000/- under Section 250 CrPC to the accused, holding that the complaint was filed without reasonable cause – High Court held that although the complainant failed to prove his case, the essential requirements to invoke Section 250 CrPC were not satisfied – No material to show malafide, malicious prosecution, or that the complaint was frivolous – Acquittal alone is insufficient ground for awarding compensation under Section 250 CrPC [Paras 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15]

Compensation – Malicious Prosecution – Scope of Section 250 CrPC – High Court analyzed precedents including State of Rajasthan v. Jainudeen Shekh (2016) 1 SCC 514 and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736 – Reiterated that compensation under Section 250 CrPC can only be awarded if prosecution was without reasonable cause, was malicious or actuated by ulterior motives – Findings of the Trial Court based on presumption, not on cogent evidence of malice – Held: Procedural lapses or acquittal do not justify invoking Section 250 CrPC unless malicious prosecution is established [Paras 9, 13, 14, 15]

Cheque Dishonour – Existence of Reasonable Grounds – Cheque admitted by accused to bear his signature – Dishonour proven by return memo from SBI – Legal notice issued and duly served – Evidence such as postal acknowledgment, receipts, and reply to notice placed on record – High Court found that these materials constituted reasonable grounds to file complaint under Section 138 NI Act – Absence of memo from payee’s bank or discrepancies in endorsement do not amount to frivolous or malicious prosecution [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13]

Trial Court Findings – Held Perverse – Trial Court placed undue emphasis on evidentiary gaps like lack of bank memo from Nishant Society and endorsement by third-party bank – Found complainant had misused cheque without concrete evidence – High Court noted such findings were based on surmises – Witness from credit society admitted blank cheques are not permitted, contradicting respondent’s defence – No finding of malice or ill-intent against complainant – Invoking Section 250 CrPC unjustified [Paras 11, 13, 14, 15]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Trial Court’s order dated 16/03/2017 awarding compensation of ₹25,000/- under Section 250 CrPC quashed and set aside – Acquittal of respondent under Section 138 NI Act remains undisturbed – No compensation payable to respondent – Appeal disposed accordingly [Para 15, Final Order]

Criminal Law – Robbery – Doubtful Identification – Nighttime Crime – Conviction Set Aside – Petitioners (A1 & A3) convicted for stabbing and robbing two employees carrying ₹16 lakhs – Conviction confirmed by appellate court – However, eye-witnesses (PW1 & PW2) admitted to contradictions regarding identity, absence of lighting, prior exposure to accused photographs, and conflicting testimonies on sequence of events – Test Identification Parade conducted 45 days post-arrest after exposure to accused undermined its probative value – Held: Identification highly doubtful – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13-18, 22].

Evidence – Eye-Witness Testimony – Contradictions – Lack of Corroboration – Acquittal Justified – Evidence of PW1 and PW2 contradictory and unsupported by independent witnesses – Medical records silent on crucial aspects such as chilli powder allegedly used – Doctor did not confirm stated injuries or circumstances – PW3 and PW5 claimed to have transported victims to hospital but hospital registers mention different names – Place of occurrence itself in dispute – Held: Trial and appellate courts failed to appreciate contradictions – Evidence insufficient for conviction [Paras 12, 15-16, 18].

Criminal Trial – Parity Principle – Similar Role, Disparate Outcome – Conviction Discriminatory – Co-accused A2 and A4–A8 acquitted despite similar evidence – No weapon recovery traced to petitioners – No specific overt act attributed to them – Conviction based solely on disputed identification – Held: Principle of parity mandates that petitioners be given same benefit of doubt as others – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 23-26].

Investigation – Recovery and Confession – Procedural Irregularities – Witness Credibility Doubtful – Confession and recovery allegedly made in presence of PW7 (VAO) and PW8 (Village Assistant) who admitted to being stock witnesses – No independent witness or house owner (Rajendran) examined – Typed confessions using laptop and mobile printer at scene not supported by evidence – Held: Recovery procedure artificial and unsupported – Evidence unreliable [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Revision allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Petitioners acquitted – Fine, if paid, to be refunded – Petitioners to be released forthwith unless required in any other proceedings.

Civil Law – Ownership Dispute – Relief of Mandatory Injunction – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff, sole owner of the property by virtue of registered gift deeds dated 6.7.2009 and 9.5.2014 executed by his mother Smt. Santosh Kumari, filed suit seeking possession from his brother (defendant) who was residing in a portion of the house as a licencee – Defendant contested, claiming co-ownership and challenged validity of gift deeds alleging fraud, coercion and undue influence – Trial court decreed the suit for mandatory injunction – Appeal by defendant dismissed – Held: Defendant failed to prove co-ownership or any title – Gift deeds validly executed – Suit for mandatory injunction maintainable post revocation of licence [Paras 1, 2, 5, 13, 14, 45, 49, 66, 73].

Transfer of Property – Valid Gift Deeds – Challenge to Gift by Sibling – Defendant claimed mother was not in sound mind and gift deeds were fraudulently executed – Plaintiff proved execution through attesting witness and documentary evidence – Both gift deeds executed in compliance with Section 123 of Transfer of Property Act – Gift valid even if possession not delivered at the time – Defendant’s allegations of fraud, coercion, and undue influence not proved – No specific pleadings or evidence to substantiate claim – Held: Gift deeds legally valid and enforceable [Paras 50–54, 58–66].

License – Nature of Possession – Permissive Possession of Defendant – Plaintiff’s brother allowed to stay as licencee – Relationship of licensor and licencee existed post-execution of gift deeds – Licence revoked via legal notice dated 4.8.2014 – Defendant failed to vacate – Held: Defendant's occupation was permissive and post-termination, plaintiff entitled to seek possession through mandatory injunction – Plaintiff rightly proceeded under Specific Relief Act and not for recovery of possession – Apex Court precedents relied upon [Paras 67–79].

Construction by Licencee – Irrevocability of Licence – Defendant alleged raising permanent structure in suit premises – No sanctioned plan or evidence produced – Plaintiff filed sanctioned plans in name of mother – Held: Defendant failed to prove that any construction raised by him – Licence not rendered irrevocable [Paras 80–81].

Registered Documents – Allegation of Interpolation – Defendant alleged manipulation in sale and gift deeds – Plaintiff produced originals – Every cutting signed – Held: No adverse inference – Registered documents carry presumption of genuineness – Defendant failed to rebut it [Paras 82–84].

Non-Exhibition of Documents – Procedural Lapse – Documents submitted in sealed cover for safe custody – Trial court failed to mark exhibits – Defendant did not object before trial court – Held: Procedural lapse by court – No prejudice caused – Plaintiff proved documents and execution through oral and documentary evidence – Decree not liable to be reversed merely for non-exhibition [Paras 85–95].

Mesne Profits – Appellate Court's Power Under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC – Trial court denied mesne profits @ ₹30,000/month for lack of proof – During appeal, stay granted on condition of ₹10,000/month deposit – Held: Appellate court can award mesne profits at ₹10,000/month as condition of stay – Defendant bound by the order – Plaintiff entitled to receive damages for use and occupation till actual handover of possession [Paras 96–100, 106].

Caretaker/Trespasser – No Title by Long Possession – Defendant residing gratuitously – No tenancy or lease established – Apex Court in Maria Margarida and Behram Tejani reiterated caretaker acquires no right – Held: Long possession does not confer any right – Defendant must vacate [Paras 101–103].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 01.07.2019 upheld – Plaintiff entitled to possession via mandatory injunction and damages @ ₹10,000/month from 01.07.2019 till delivery of possession – Interim orders vacated [Paras 104–109].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of trial court affirmed – Defendant to hand over vacant possession to plaintiff – Plaintiff entitled to ₹10,000 per month as damages from date of decree till possession is handed over.