NDPS Offence – Bail Application – Section 20(b)(ii)(B) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act – Bail Granted – The petitioner, arraigned as the second accused, was alleged to have conspired with the first accused in transporting 2 kg of ganja using a vehicle allegedly hired by him – No contraband was recovered from the petitioner’s possession – The vehicle was not registered in his name – Investigation was mostly complete and the petitioner had already spent a reasonable period in custody – Held: Section 37 of the NDPS Act not attracted due to intermediate quantity – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 1–6].

Waqf Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition – Challenge to Waqf Tribunal Order – Articles 226 and 227 – Writ Petitions Held Maintainable - The petitioners questioned the legality of the Waqf Tribunal’s declaration of suit land as Waqf property – Objection raised by Opposite Parties that only a revision is maintainable under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act – Held: In light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kiran Devi, jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 is not ousted – The nomenclature of the petition as “writ” is immaterial when substance falls under supervisory jurisdiction of the Court [Paras 4-7].

Nature of Jurisdiction – Distinction Between Appellate and Supervisory Review – High Court’s Role Under Proviso to Section 83(9) – Reiterated - The High Court does not act as an appellate court under Section 83(9) – Its jurisdiction is limited to examining correctness, legality, or propriety of the Waqf Tribunal’s order – Reference made to L. Chandra Kumar and Pepsi Foods Ltd. to hold that wrong labeling of a petition does not affect the Court’s power to adjudicate [Paras 6-7].

Procedural Directions – Reclassification of Petitions – CMP Nomenclature Mandated - Though petitions are maintainable, the Court emphasized that applications arising under Article 227 must be procedurally registered as Civil Miscellaneous Petitions (CMPs) as per Orissa High Court Rules – Directed Registry to re-register the writ petitions as CMPs and place before the appropriate Single Bench [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Writ Petitions Maintainable – To Be Heard by Single Judge – The Court upheld the maintainability of the petitions under Article 227 while clarifying that procedural reclassification is necessary – Directed registry to take necessary steps accordingly [Para 9].

Criminal Revision – Conviction for Negligent Driving – Revision Dismissed – The petitioner was convicted under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and Section 187 MV Act for rash driving that caused the death of a 4-year-old girl – His conviction and sentence were upheld by the Appellate Court – Held: In revision, re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible unless there is gross miscarriage of justice or perversity – No such infirmity found – Concurrent findings of guilt based on credible evidence upheld [Paras 13-18, 41-46].

Negligent Driving – Hit and Run – Minor Child Crushed on Kachha Portion – Maximum Sentence Justified – Evidence showed that the petitioner drove the vehicle off the pucca road and hit the child standing on the kachha portion – He failed to take the injured child to hospital despite being in close vicinity – Witness testimonies were consistent and corroborated – Defence of alternate route not proven – Held: Maximum sentence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC justified due to reckless conduct and lack of regard for human life [Paras 38-44].

Eyewitness Testimonies – Minor Contradictions Not Material – Testimonies Consistent on Material Particulars – Held: Minor inconsistencies in time estimates or shop descriptions did not shake core prosecution version – Witness behaviour post-incident cannot be used to discredit testimony – There is no standard reaction expected from eyewitnesses [Paras 21-31].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Not Equivalent to Appellate Power – Evidence Appreciated by Trial and Appellate Courts – Held: The revisional court is not an appellate forum – Revisional powers are limited to correcting jurisdictional or legal errors – Concurrent findings not shown to be perverse, arbitrary or unreasonable – Hence, no interference warranted [Paras 13-18, 42].

Defence Evidence – Testimonies Contradictory – Not Sufficient to Displace Prosecution Case – Defence witnesses claimed alternative route was used – Their accounts were inconsistent and failed to disprove prosecution case – Held: Learned Courts below rightly discarded defence evidence [Paras 32-36].

Sentence – Maximum Punishment – No Leniency Warranted – Victim was a 4-year-old child – Driver showed no remorse or responsibility – Held: Courts justified in imposing maximum sentence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC in view of gravity of offence and alarming rise in road accidents – Plea for sentence reduction rejected [Paras 42-44].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Upheld – No illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice found in concurrent judgments of Trial and Appellate Courts – Revision dismissed and sentence confirmed [Para 46].

Family Law - Maintenance – Enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Increase Allowed – Revision Allowed – Petitioner sought enhancement of ₹10,000/month maintenance fixed in 2012 to ₹30,000/month citing increase in cost of living, medical needs, and respondent’s pension – Family Court had rejected plea stating no substantial change in circumstances – High Court held that increase in respondent’s pension from ₹28,705 (net salary in 2012) to ₹40,068 justifies enhancement – Maintenance enhanced to ₹14,000/month from date of revision petition [Paras 1, 7, 20-28].

Comparison of Net Salary and Pension – Faulty Reasoning by Family Court – Corrected by High Court – Family Court compared 2012 gross salary with current pension without considering that original maintenance was based on net salary – High Court found this comparison flawed and based enhancement on present net pension being substantially higher than net income in 2012 [Paras 14, 21].

CGHS Card Entitlement – Right of Legally Wedded Wife – Respondent Directed to Restore Wife’s Access – Respondent removed petitioner’s name from CGHS card despite ongoing maintenance – High Court held that as legally wedded wife, petitioner is entitled to CGHS benefits – Respondent directed to facilitate inclusion of her name on the card within two months [Paras 22-24].

Change in Circumstances – Interpretation – Includes Rise in Cost of Living and Health Needs – Court reaffirmed that “change in circumstances” under Section 127 Cr.P.C. includes not just income variation but also health issues, inflation, loss of family support, and deterioration of earning spouse’s health – Mere retirement doesn’t bar maintenance enhancement [Paras 17-18, 26-27].

Balancing Equities – Senior Citizens on Both Sides – Modest Enhancement Ordered – Both petitioner and respondent being senior citizens, Court adopted a balanced approach – Maintenance enhanced modestly to ₹14,000/month in view of respondent’s limited post-retirement income and petitioner’s medical needs [Paras 25-27].

Final Decision – Family Court’s order set aside – Maintenance enhanced to ₹14,000/month with effect from date of revision – Arrears to be cleared within six weeks – CGHS card to be restored within two months [Paras 28-29].

Civil Law - Title and Possession – Dismissal Confirmed – The appellants (plaintiffs) sought declaration of title, possession, and alternatively partition, over land alleged to be part of a tank acquired by their father – Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently found that the defendants were in possession for over 25 years, pursuant to a 1984 family partition, and plaintiffs failed to prove title or possession – Revenue records relied upon by plaintiffs were held insufficient to establish title – The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC – Second appeal dismissed, confirming concurrent findings [Paras 1–3, 14–26].

Title Suit – Declaration and Possession – Plaintiffs Must Prove Their Own Title – Plaintiffs failed to establish legal ownership or entitlement over the suit land – Defendants proved possession under 1984 partition – Held: In a suit for declaration, plaintiffs must succeed on the strength of their own title and cannot rely on weakness of defendant’s case – Courts below rightly rejected claim [Paras 14, 18, 24].

Adverse Possession – Long Possession by Defendants – Suit Barred – Plaintiffs approached Court after over 25 years – Defendants in open, uninterrupted possession since 1984 – Held: Plaintiffs lost any right over suit land by efflux of time – Suit barred by limitation under Article 65 of Limitation Act [Paras 19, 21, 24].

Unregistered Partition Deed – Ex.B.3 – Admissible as Memorandum of Oral Partition – Partition deed though unregistered was treated as proof of earlier oral partition – Plaintiffs’ witnesses admitted to 1984 partition and continuous possession by defendants – Held: Courts below rightly relied on Ex.B.3 to establish family division [Paras 16, 18].

Co-ownership – Not Established – Plaintiffs and Defendants Not Co-heirs – Plaintiffs not entitled to claim partition or joint possession – Held: Presumption of joint possession or claim of co-heirship not applicable – Alternative relief of partition rightly rejected [Paras 22-23].

Revenue Records – Not Proof of Title – Exs.A1, A2, A6-A9 – Pattadar passbooks and adangals held insufficient to prove legal title or possession – Held: Such records do not confer ownership in absence of supporting title deed or consistent possession [Para 21].

Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings Upheld – Courts below applied correct legal principles – Held: High Court cannot re-appreciate facts unless findings are perverse or legally flawed – No such error found – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 14-15, 25-26].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court confirmed – No costs awarded – Plaintiffs failed to prove title or possession after 25 years of inaction [Para 26].

Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal – Offences under Sections 336, 427, 447, 506 IPC and Section 3(v) SC/ST Act – Acquittal Affirmed – State challenged acquittal of accused for allegedly damaging construction, pelting stones, and hurling caste-based abuses – Trial Court held land was jointly owned, exclusive possession not proved, civil dispute pending, and prosecution evidence riddled with contradictions – High Court held trial court’s view was reasonable, no perversity or misreading of evidence found – Appeal dismissed, acquittal upheld [Paras 12-13, 33-35].

Scope of Interference in Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference permissible only if judgment suffers from perversity, misreading, or omission to consider material evidence – If two reasonable views are possible, acquittal cannot be disturbed – Trial Court’s view upheld as a possible view [Paras 12-13, 34].

Criminal Trespass – Section 447 IPC – Joint Ownership of Land – No partition by metes and bounds – Complainant’s exclusive possession not proved – Trespass charge unsustainable [Para 33].

Evidentiary Contradictions – Witnesses inconsistent about dates of pillar construction – Photographs showed only iron bars, not completed pillars – Demarcation report did not note damaged pillars – Contradictions undermined prosecution case [Paras 23-26].

Disproportionate Estimate of Damage – Contract for entire house was ₹55,000 – Yet estimate of damage to two pillars inflated to ₹2,00,850 – Cast doubt on prosecution’s claim [Para 28].

SC/ST Act – Section 3(v) – Omnibus Allegation of Caste Abuse – Witnesses made generalised statements attributing caste abuses jointly to accused – No specific role assigned – Following Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, such omnibus inclusion unsafe – Charge not proved [Paras 30-31].

Alleged Stone Pelting – No stones recovered at spot – Site plan and photographs silent on stone debris – Prosecution version disbelieved [Para 32].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of accused confirmed – Bail bonds of ₹25,000 each directed under Section 437-A CrPC (Section 481 BNSS, 2023) for six months [Paras 35-36].

Civil Law  – Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell New Tenure Land – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff sought enforcement of a 1980 agreement to sell land which was then classified as new tenure agricultural land – No permission under Section 43 of Gujarat Tenancy Act obtained – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11 – Held: Agreement was void ab initio, barred by law – No cause of action arose – High Court dismissed Second Appeal, holding no substantial question of law arises [Paras 1-3, 15-17, 24-26].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Enforceability of Agreement Hit by Statutory Bar – Agreement to sell restricted land without Collector’s permission – Held: Agreement void under Section 43 of Tenancy Act – Plaint rightly rejected at threshold – Plaintiff's readiness and possession immaterial in face of statutory bar [Paras 15-17, 22-23].

Tenancy Law – Section 43 of Gujarat Tenancy Act – Agreement to Sell Without Sanction – Barred by Law – Held: Section 43(1) expressly prohibits agreement to sell new tenure land without Collector's sanction – Section 43(2) renders such agreements void – Plaintiff admitted land was new tenure at the time of agreement – Hence, no enforceable right accrued [Paras 14-17].

Specific Performance – Conditional Agreement – Land Not Converted at Time of Agreement – Held: Agreement subject to future conversion of land tenure – Sale unenforceable unless condition fulfilled and permission obtained – Suit filed decades later without evidence of compliance – No cause of action made out [Paras 10-11, 20-21].

Possession and Protection Under Section 53A TPA – Not a Ground to Sustain Invalid Agreement – Plaintiff claimed possession since 1980 – Held: Possession under invalid or illegal agreement not protected under Section 53A – Agreement void from inception due to statutory bar – Ancillary reliefs cannot be granted [Paras 13, 20].

Limitation – Cause of Action Claimed in 2012 – Agreement Dated 1980 – No Continuous Assertion of Right – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish readiness or communication for 32 years – Father of vendor died in 2009 – No demand till public notice in 2012 – Suit time-barred and barred by law [Paras 11, 23].

Substantial Question of Law – None Arising from Concurrent Findings – Enforceability of Void Agreement Not a New Legal Issue – Held: All legal issues settled by Full Bench and Supreme Court – No perversity or error in findings of Courts below – Appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 24-26].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Civil Application Also Disposed – No error in rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 – Agreement held void and suit barred by law – No triable issue or substantial question of law made out [Paras 26-27].

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles of Double Presumption – Acquittal Upheld – The State filed an appeal against the acquittal of two accused charged under Sections 394/397/34/411 IPC for assaulting and robbing the complainant – The Trial Court acquitted the accused citing inconsistencies in identification, non-sealing of recovered items, and contradictory testimonies – High Court reiterated the principle of double presumption of innocence applicable after acquittal and found no compelling reason to interfere – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-16].

Identification – TIP Refused – Delayed and Tainted Identification Not Reliable – Complainant identified accused in court more than a month after arrest, claiming he recognized them during court visit – Accused had refused TIP citing prior exposure in police station – High Court held such identification lacked evidentiary value due to procedural compromise and delay [Paras 6, 11, 14].

Recovery – Failure to Seal Recovered Items – Recovery Not Credible – Purse, PAN card, and ID card allegedly recovered from accused were neither sealed nor subjected to forensic testing – IO admitted inability to link currency notes to the complainant – Recovery held to be in open condition and devoid of evidentiary worth [Paras 9, 14].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Independent Witness Denied Presence of Accused – Defence witness DW6, an independent eyewitness and neighbor, stated that quarrel occurred between complainant and other persons and the accused were not present – Prosecution did not cross-examine the witness – DD entries and MLC also did not mention robbery – Held: Prosecution version doubtful [Paras 7-8, 14].

Appellate Review of Acquittal – Scope Limited – No Interference Without Perverse Finding – Citing precedents including Ravi Sharma v. State (2022) and Anwar Ali v. State of H.P. (2020), Court reiterated that appellate courts must be cautious in reversing acquittals – No perversity or illegality found in trial court’s assessment – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-13, 15].

Final Decision – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent No.2 under Sections 394/397/34/411 IPC upheld – No interference warranted in well-reasoned judgment of Trial Court – Proceedings against respondent No.1 abated due to death during pendency of appeal [Paras 6, 15-16].

Service Law – Writ - Compulsory Retirement – Public Interest – Clause 22(2) FCI Staff Regulations – Writ Dismissed – Petitioner challenged the order of compulsory retirement and subsequent rejection of representation, contending non-consideration of satisfactory service record in preceding five years and recent promotion – Held: Reviewing Committee rightly considered entire service record including past punishments – Regulation requires review based on full service history and not just recent performance – Judicial review scope is narrow and Court cannot act as Appellate Authority – No mala fides or arbitrariness found [Paras 1, 5, 10, 12, 13, 16-19].

Washed-Off Theory – Inapplicability in Compulsory Retirement – Old Punishments Relevant – Validity of Action Upheld – Petitioner argued that past penalties, mostly symbolic, should be ignored due to recent promotions and good ACRs – Held: As per SC in Om Prakash, past adverse entries not wiped off for assessing fitness to continue – Old record, especially involving integrity and repeated misconduct, can justify compulsory retirement despite recent satisfactory entries [Paras 6, 11-14].

Promotion in Last Five Years – No Automatic Immunity from Retirement – Merit-Based vs. Seniority Promotion Distinction – No Relief – Petitioner relied on clause that ordinarily prevents retirement within a year of superannuation or after recent promotions – Held: Clause only protects those promoted on merit, not seniority-cum-fitness – Petitioner failed to establish promotion was merit-based – Hence, clause inapplicable [Paras 4, 14, 16].

Discriminatory Treatment Argument – Rejected – Case to Be Decided on Own Facts – Petitioner cited instances of similarly situated employees who were retained – Held: Mere differential treatment not enough – No record of comparators placed before Court – Each case requires separate evaluation based on individual record [Para 15].

Final Decision – Petitioner failed to establish arbitrariness, malice, or non-application of mind by the Reviewing Committee – Writ Petition Dismissed [Paras 17-19].