Revenue Law - Eviction from Gram Sabha Land - Procedure under Section 67 - Statutory Rules vs. Court Guidelines - Petitioners evicted and penalized for constructing a mosque on Gram Sabha land (Khalihan) - Assailed for denial of opportunity to cross-examine the Lekhpal, relying on guidelines in Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. - Held: Proceedings under Section 67 read with Section 225-A of the Code and Rules 66, 67, and 192 of the Rules are strictly summary in nature, to be decided upon affidavits - The guidelines framed in Rishipal Singh recommending a detailed procedure were meant for the State to "adopt" by suitably amending the Rules - Until the State Government amends the Rules, the existing statutory summary procedure shall prevail - Eviction order passed in compliance with existing Rules is valid [Paras 13-19, 27-30].

Statutory Interpretation - Enforceability of Court Guidelines - Existence of Statutory Rules - Held: While courts may frame guidelines to fill a legislative vacuum (as in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan), where specific, valid, and enforceable statutory rules exist, there is no occasion to exercise extraordinary powers to formulate new enforceable guidelines unless the existing rules are struck down - Directions in Rishipal Singh requiring mandatory oral evidence and cross-examination amount to converting a summary procedure into a regular procedure and cannot be enforced prior to formal adoption by the State via amendment of Rules [Paras 27-29].

Revenue Law - Imposition of Penalty - Proof of Occupation or Construction - Eviction upheld but penalty set aside - Held: There was no material on record to link the petitioners to either the construction or the occupation of the mosque - Imposition of penalty of Rs. 36,000/- by the Tehsildar set aside [Para 25].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed - Order of eviction upheld - Imposition of penalty against the petitioners set aside due to lack of linking material.

Commercial Law – Contracts – Suit for Recovery of Money – Breach of Contract – Demurrage and Excess Freight Charges – The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,18,70,115/- (principal and interest) against the defendant/respondent regarding a contract for transportation services – Defendant contended that plaintiff breached the contract by failing to place trailers at the designated time, forcing the defendant to hire alternate transporters and incur demurrage charges imposed by port authorities – Defendant recovered Rs. 29,61,000/- by encashing bank guarantee, retaining EMD, and from pending bills – Held: Trial Court correctly concluded that plaintiff failed to prove the basis of its claim, having produced no supporting documents like invoices – Defendant produced adequate material, including bills from port authorities, to justify deductions made strictly in accordance with the contract terms – Dismissal of suit upheld [Paras 15, 20, 23, 30–34].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Claim for outstanding dues – Plaintiff claimed a specific sum but failed to enumerate details or produce any material/invoices to substantiate the claim other than a statement of accounts and a demand letter – PW1 admitted no separate bills were raised – Held: Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving the amount due and payable – Defendant justified its deductions with documentary evidence (Ex. D28) which went unimpeached in cross-examination – Appeal dismissed [Paras 20, 26, 32–34].

Decision: Appeal dismissed as being devoid of merit with costs. All pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability of direct approach to High Court – Concurrent Jurisdiction – Section 482 BNSS gives concurrent powers to the High Court and Sessions Court to entertain anticipatory bail applications – Normal rule requires approaching the Sessions Court first, but High Court can entertain directly in special or extra-ordinary circumstances – FIR was lodged on the direction of Special Judge (POCSO) under Section 173(4) BNSS – Special Judge acts in dual capacity as Magistrate and Sessions Court – Held: The present application comes within the purview of special/extra-ordinary circumstances; preliminary objection of the State against direct maintainability before the High Court is rejected [Paras 26–32].

Criminal Law – POCSO Act – Section 29 Presumption of Guilt – Applicability at pre-arrest bail stage – State opposed anticipatory bail relying on the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act – Held: Presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act cannot be invoked at the stage of pre-arrest bail before the framing of charges – Requiring an accused to rebut the presumption of guilt before foundational facts are established and charges are framed would do violence to fundamental criminal jurisprudence and Article 21 of the Constitution – Grant or refusal of bail at this stage is to be decided on usual and ordinary settled principles [Paras 40–45].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Factual Matrix and Conduct of Parties – Delay in FIR and unnatural conduct – FIR lodged after 6 days delay by a stranger claiming to be the guardian of the victims – Victims did not inform their natural parents but confided in a stranger – Material improvements in victims' statements regarding date and place of incident – Victims were interviewed by media in violation of POCSO and Juvenile Justice Act protocols – Dispute regarding bathing rights in Magh Mela coincided with the date the informant allegedly received information of the offence – Medical report noted no external injuries and only stated sexual assault cannot be ruled out – Held: Considering the factual matrix, discrepancies, and unnatural course of human conduct, a case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out [Paras 33–39, 51–52].

Procedural Law – Filing of Affidavit – Defective Affidavit – State objected that the affidavit in support of the anticipatory bail application was not sworn by Applicant No.1 but by Applicant No.2 and a stranger (pairokar), allegedly violating Rule 18-A of Allahabad High Court Rules – Held: Procedural laws are handmaids of justice and not meant to defeat the ends of justice – Hyper-technical approach cannot be adopted to throw out the application when Applicant No.2 explicitly stated he is doing pairavi on behalf of Applicant No.1 [Para 46].

Decision: Anticipatory bail application allowed – In the event of arrest, applicants are directed to be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each, subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence, not leaving India without permission of the Court, and all parties refraining from giving media interviews regarding the present case during the pendency of the investigation/trial.

Property Law - Doctrine of Lis Pendens vs. Bona Fide Purchaser - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 19(b) - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 52 - Appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a registered agreement to sell dated 03.09.1981 executed by Defendant No. 1 - During the pendency of the suit, Defendant No. 1 executed a sale deed in favour of Defendants No. 2 to 7 on 11.10.1982 - Trial court denied specific performance holding the subsequent purchasers to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act - Held: Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act operates at a stage prior to the institution of a suit - Once a suit is instituted, the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act comes into force and prevails over Section 19(b) - The defense of bona fide purchaser without notice is not available to pendente lite transferees, as Section 52 is based on public policy - Subsequent purchasers are bound by the decree irrespective of good faith or lack of notice - Trial court legally erred in granting the benefit of Section 19(b) to pendente lite purchasers [Paras 32-37, 65-70].

Property Law - Transfer by Unauthorized Person - Subsequent Acquisition of Interest - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 43 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 13(a) - At the time of executing the agreement to sell (03.09.1981), Defendant No. 1 had an imperfect title as the property had been previously sold to a third party - Subsequently, on 07.09.1981, Defendant No. 1 acquired perfect title when the prior sale deed was cancelled via a compromise decree - Held: Under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 13(a) of the Specific Relief Act, if a vendor acquires any interest in the property subsequent to the contract and the agreement subsists, the purchaser can compel the vendor to make good the contract out of such acquired interest - Subsequent purchasers cannot oppose specific performance on the ground of the vendor's initial lack of title [Paras 35-38, 66-68].

Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Proof of Execution - Plaintiff proved payment of substantial earnest money (Rs. 41,000/- out of the total consideration of Rs. 79,500/-) and the execution of the registered agreement - Plaintiff further proved readiness and willingness by remaining present at the Sub-Registrar's office on the stipulated date and serving legal notice - Defendant No. 1 committed default by failing to obtain the requisite income tax clearance and failing to execute the sale deed - Held: Plaintiff successfully established readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract - Plaintiff is entitled to the primary relief of specific performance [Paras 59-61].

Decision: Appeal allowed with costs - Impugned judgment and decree dated 30.09.1986 of the trial court set aside - Suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 03.09.1981 decreed against all defendants - Defendant No. 1 directed to execute the sale deed and hand over vacant possession upon receiving the balance consideration within two months, failing which the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree executed through the court.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 149(2)(a)(ii) — Invalid Driving License — Liability of Insurance Company — Pay and Recover — Avoidance Clause in Policy — Deceased was traveling in a three-wheeler tempo when the offending tanker driven rashly and negligently on the wrong side collided with the tempo, causing his death — Driver of the tanker found to be holding driving license valid only till 9th September, 2004, the accident having occurred on 9th June, 2010 — Driver was also carrying hazardous chemical (Hydrochloric Acid) — Driver and owner chose not to appear before the Tribunal — Insurance company established its defence of invalid driving license through RTO certificate and driving license extract — Held: Defence under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of absence of valid driving license was duly established — However, considering the avoidance clause in the standard commercial vehicle package policy which provides that nothing in the policy shall affect the right of any person indemnified by the policy to recover amounts under the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company is liable to satisfy the entire award to the claimants at first instance — Insurance company granted liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle in execution [Paras 14, 15, 18, 20].

Motor Accidents — Quantum of Compensation — Income of Deceased — Skilled Labourer — Minimum Wages — Conventional Heads — Pranay Sethi — Deceased was an idol-maker earning his livelihood through skilled craft — Tribunal had assessed income as Rs. 4,000/- per month in absence of direct proof — Held: In absence of direct proof of claimed income of Rs. 10,000/-, income to be fixed based on minimum wages for skilled labour prevailing at the time of accident i.e. Rs. 4,210/- per month — Deceased being self-employed, 25% addition towards future rise of income as per Pranay Sethi principles — Deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses justified as deceased was survived by 5 dependents — Multiplier of 13 correctly applied for age group of 46-50 years as per Sarla Verma — Dependency loss redetermined at Rs. 6,15,732/- — Conventional heads enhanced applying 10% rise — Funeral expenses and loss of estate at Rs. 18,150/- each — Loss of spousal consortium Rs. 48,400/-, filial consortium for both aged parents Rs. 96,800/-, parental consortium for two major sons Rs. 96,800/- — Total compensation enhanced from Rs. 5,63,200/- to Rs. 8,94,032/- [Paras 21-27].

Decision: First appeal partly allowed — Cross objections allowed — Award enhanced to Rs. 8,94,032/- with interest at 9% per annum from date of filing of claim petition — Insurance company directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs. 3,30,832/- with the Tribunal within six weeks — Liberty granted to insurance company to recover amount from owner of offending vehicle in execution.

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Writ Jurisdiction – Compensation for Negligent Death – Three minor children of the petitioner drowned in the forebay tank of the Chenani Hydel Project on 09.06.2008 — tank contained deep water with steep plastered slopes and was secured only by a parapet wall of two feet in height — petitioner alleged gross negligence of respondent authorities in failing to provide adequate fencing or protective barriers — respondents denied negligence and raised preliminary objection that writ petition was not maintainable as disputed questions of fact were involved — Held: Where negligence or inaction of State authorities results in deprivation of life, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is fully available and the alternative remedy of a civil suit does not operate as a bar [Paras 25–28].

Tort Law – Res Ipsa Loquitur – Hazardous Installation – Negligence of State Authorities – Respondents' own admission that only a two-feet parapet wall existed around a hazardous reservoir constituted admission of foundational facts — no disputed question of fact survived for civil trial — drowning of three minor children in a reservoir maintained by respondents raises a presumption of negligence that the respondents failed to rebut by placing cogent material — a parapet wall of two feet cannot by any standard constitute an adequate safeguard against accidental entry into a deep water reservoir — Held: Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur squarely applicable; respondents clearly negligent [Paras 29–35].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Tender Age – Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Attributed to Children – Respondents sought to attribute negligence to parents for lack of supervision — children of tender age are incapable of appreciating risk and the law expects a higher degree of care from those maintaining dangerous premises in areas where presence of children is foreseeable — doctrine of contributory negligence cannot ordinarily be invoked against children of tender age — Held: Attempt to shift blame onto parents or deceased children is neither legally sustainable nor morally tenable [Paras 37–42].

Constitutional Law – Directive Principles – Duty of State to Safeguard Life – Articles 38, 39(e)(f) and 47 of the Constitution cast a corresponding obligation upon the State to secure and protect the lives of its citizens — failure to adopt adequate precautions around hazardous installations constitutes a breach of constitutional duty — State bears strict liability where its action or inaction results in infringement of the right to life — compensation in public law is not intended to value human life but to provide solace and enforce constitutional obligations [Paras 43–55].

Compensation – Quantum – Multiplier Method Inapplicable – Uniform Award – Deceased were minor children with no independent source of income and assessment of future earnings would be wholly speculative — application of the multiplier method would result in variation of compensation among similarly placed claimants whereas pain and suffering of parents remains the same — Held: Multiplier method inappropriate; just, fair and reasonable compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- per deceased child (total Rs. 6,00,000/-) awarded as a public law remedy [Paras 49–53, 67].

Decision: Writ petition allowed — Respondents directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- per deceased child, totalling Rs. 6,00,000/-, within eight weeks — Respondents further directed to take immediate steps to ensure proper fencing, installation of warning signboards and adequate safeguarding of the forebay tank and all similar hazardous installations — Chief Secretary of the Union Territory directed to formulate a comprehensive policy for safety measures around reservoirs, water bodies and other hazardous installations.

Railway Law – Refund of Freight – "Overcharge" vs. "Illegal Charge" – Section 106(3) of the Railways Act, 1989 – NRL booked petroleum products from Numaligarh Refinery Siding (NMGS) during April 2005 to July 2009 — Railways collected both "through distance" charges (9 km) and "siding charges" for the same railway service — Railways admitted the duplication vide letters dated 11.11.2008 and 08.07.2009 and the CGS/NMGS certified Rs. 2,98,22,483/- as refundable vide certificate dated 07.01.2013 — Railways resisted the claim on the ground that notice under Section 106(3) was not served within six months from the date of payment — Held: "Overcharge" means a charge in excess of prescribed rates; where the Railways themselves contend that the siding charges were legal and valid, the charge cannot simultaneously be described as an "overcharge" — a charge that is either illegal or subsequently admitted to be refundable does not attract the mandatory notice requirement under Section 106(3) [Paras 19–21].

Railway Law – Section 106(3) – Applicability Limited to Overcharges – Section 106(3) of the Railways Act, 1989 specifically applies to claims for refund of "overcharges" and uses the words "paid" and "date of payment" — if on the date of payment, the charge was not an overcharge, subsequent events cannot make it one for the purpose of triggering the limitation under Section 106(3) — a fine and clear distinction exists between an "overcharge" and an "illegal charge" — Section 106(3) has no application to claims for refund of illegal charges — Held: The mandatory notice requirement under Section 106(3) does not apply to the present claim [Para 19, relying on Union of India v. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 2024 INSC 242].

Railway Law – Challenge to Condonation Order Barred by Time – The Railway Claims Tribunal had condoned the delay in filing the claim application vide order dated 21.10.2016 — no challenge was preferred by the Railways against that order within the 90-day period prescribed under Section 23(3) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 — Held: Challenge to the condonation order is hopelessly time-barred and stands repelled [Para 8].

Railway Law – Authenticity of CGS Certificate – Railways Cannot Disown Admissions of Authorised Officials – CGS/NMGS certified the refundable siding charges at Rs. 2,98,22,483/- in 2013 and reaffirmed the same through RTI response in 2017 — Railways sought to deny authenticity by claiming records could not be found — Held: Authenticity of the certificates cannot be disproved by a mere assertion that records are unavailable — Railways cannot abjure responsibility for the actions of their own authorised officials [Paras 25–28].

Railway Law – Interest – Enhancement Refused – NRL in cross-appeal sought enhancement of interest from 6%/9% to 12% per annum — identical issue decided against NRL by a Coordinate Bench in MFA 12/2009 in a similar matter — Tribunal had no specific statutory provision for interest and granted it in exercise of inherent powers — Held: Once the Tribunal has consciously exercised its discretion in granting interest, the same cannot be re-agitated in appeal unless perversity or patent illegality is demonstrated — cross-appeal dismissed [Paras 29–31].

Decision: Both appeals dismissed — MFA No. 142/2019 filed by Union of India (Railways) dismissed — MFA No. 82/2019 filed by M/s Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. dismissed — Railway Claims Tribunal's order directing refund of siding charges with interest at 6% per annum till date of judgment and 9% per annum thereafter on default, upheld — parties to bear their own costs.

Service Law – Dismissal from Service – CRPF – Absence of Departmental Enquiry – Petitioners, Constables (GD) in the 39th Battalion CRPF, dismissed w.e.f. 09.11.2009 by invoking Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27-CC(ii) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, on the basis of FIR No. 12/2009 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294, 506-B and 307 IPC – Disciplinary authority formed opinion that regular departmental enquiry was not reasonably practicable and no enquiry was held – No witness examined, no opportunity of hearing granted – Held: Procedure under Section 11 of the CRPF Act read with Rule 27-CC(ii) of the CRPF Rules not followed in its true spirit – Impugned orders of dismissal, appeal and revision set aside [Paras 3, 6, 11].

Natural Justice – Major Penalty – Mandatory Procedural Safeguards – Removal from service entails serious civil consequences – Delinquent employee must be afforded adequate opportunity at every stage including show cause notice, framing of charges, supply of documents, examination of evidence and cross-examination – Mere assertion that witnesses were unwilling to depose cannot justify dispensing with a full-fledged enquiry – Satisfaction recorded by disciplinary authority not supported by cogent or compelling material – Held: Imposition of major penalty without proper enquiry and reasonable opportunity of hearing cannot be sustained [Paras 12, 16, 21].

Criminal Acquittal – Effect on Departmental Action – Petitioners convicted under Section 323 IPC by Trial Court – Conviction set aside in Criminal Appeal No. 744/2012 vide judgment dated 15.05.2014 by this Court on benefit of doubt – Judgment of acquittal attained finality – Though departmental and criminal proceedings operate in distinct spheres, once departmental enquiry itself was not conducted in accordance with law and criminal conviction also did not survive, foundation of impugned dismissal becomes unsustainable – Held: Basis of dismissal ceased to exist [Paras 13, 14, 22].

Discrimination – Similarly Situated Employees – Reinstatement – Co-delinquents dismissed by same order dated 09.11.2009 and subsequently acquitted were reinstated in service – Denial of same benefit to present petitioners whose conviction was also set aside amounts to manifest arbitrariness and hostile discrimination – Violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India – Held: Discriminatory treatment not justified [Paras 15, 23].

Relief – Reinstatement – Back Wages – Petitioners entitled to reinstatement in service – However, back wages denied having regard to long period during which petitioners remained out of service – Period from date of removal till reinstatement to be treated as service for all other purposes including continuity of service and retiral benefits – No order as to costs [Paras 25, 26, 27, 28].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed — Orders of removal from service, appellate and revisional orders quashed — Petitioners directed to be reinstated in service — Back wages denied — Period of absence to count for continuity of service and retiral benefits.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 115 — Maintainability of Civil Revision Against Order Under Section 24 — Preliminary Objection — Respondents contended that a revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable against an order passed under Section 24 CPC — Held: A transfer application under Section 24 CPC, when allowed by the District Court, amounts to final disposal of the proceedings — Though ancillary to the suit, the proceedings under Section 24 are judicial in nature, requiring the court to consider the grounds for transfer urged by one party and opposed by the other and to arrive at a judicial decision after due application of mind — The order passed on the transfer application is a 'case decided' as it disposes of the proceedings finally — No appeal lies against such order — Therefore, the civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC is maintainable [Para 10].

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 24 — Transfer of Suits — Suppression of Facts — Bias of Presiding Officer — Respondents filed application for transfer of suits under Section 24 CPC alleging bias on part of the Presiding Officer on account of oral remarks — However, respondents did not disclose to the High Court, while the High Court was considering extension of time for disposal of suits, that they had already filed such transfer petition — The High Court had earlier imposed costs of Rs. 50,000/- on respondents for delaying proceedings through multiple interlocutory applications and non-cooperation — The Presiding Officer had been fully conversant with the facts since 29.05.2024 — Held: The Presiding Officer insisting on proceeding with the matter without granting adjournments, in light of directions of the High Court, cannot be painted as bias — Transfer of suits at this stage would require the new Presiding Officer additional time to understand the facts, resulting in further delay — Transfer order set aside — Trial court directed to conclude proceedings within three months [Paras 11, 12, 13].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed — Impugned order dated 21.02.2026 in Misc. No. 785/2025 quashed and set aside — Trial court directed to conclude proceedings in O.S. No. 1453/2024, O.S. No. 2897/2024 and Misc. No. 576/2024 within three months from the next date of hearing.