Revenue Law – Mutation – Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 32 of the OSS Act – Member, Board of Revenue Exceeds Jurisdiction – Writ Allowed – Petitioners' predecessor sought correction of Hal ROR in respect of land wrongly recorded in the name of the Municipality (Opposite Party No. 5) – Commissioner directed Tahasildar to conduct field inquiry under Rule 34 and Para 17(1) of the Mutation Manual – Tahasildar allowed mutation and corrected ROR – Municipality's appeal was dismissed by Sub-Collector on grounds of limitation after a delay of four and a half years – In revision under Section 32, Member, Board of Revenue quashed not only the Sub-Collector's order but also the earlier orders of the Commissioner and the Tahasildar, which were not under challenge – Held: Member acted beyond the scope of Section 32 and the impugned order is set aside [Paras 2, 10, 12, 13].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 32 – Scope and Limits – Member, Board of Revenue empowered under Section 32 to call for records and revise proceedings where an officer has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or contravened an express provision of law causing serious miscarriage of justice – Held: The Member was duty-bound to examine the correctness of the Sub-Collector's order dismissing the mutation appeal on limitation – Instead, the Member examined orders of the Commissioner and Tahasildar that were not before him – Such approach cannot be countenanced under Section 32 [Paras 10, 12].

Delegation of Authority – Commissioner's Order Under Section 15(b) – Direction to Tahasildar Not Delegation – Commissioner, while hearing revision under Section 15(b), observed that revisional court had no independent agency for field inquiry and that settlement operations having concluded, the Tahasildar had jurisdiction under Rule 34 – Held: Such direction is not delegation of revisional authority but liberty granted to petitioners to approach the competent authority – Tahasildar's jurisdiction to conduct mutation inquiry under Para 17(1) of the Mutation Manual is independent and valid [Paras 9, 3].

Judicial Conduct – Adverse Remarks Against Subordinate Officer – Restraint in Language – Member, Board of Revenue made caustic remarks characterising the Sub-Collector's dismissal of appeal on grounds of limitation as "judicial misconduct" – Held: If the Sub-Collector's order was legally unsustainable, the proper course was to set it aside with valid reasons – Labelling a procedural order as judicial misconduct without any reasoning is unwarranted – Senior officers must exercise restraint in the use of language while dealing with orders of subordinate authorities [Para 11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned orders dated 27.06.2009 and 29.04.2011 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue set aside – Orders dated 01.11.1996 of the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, order dated 07.01.1997 of the Tahasildar, Cuttack, and order dated 17.08.2002 of the Sub-Collector, Cuttack restored.

Environmental Law – Coastal Regulation Zone – Illegal Constructions – CRZ 2011 – Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Authority and APTDC initiated steps for establishing a tourism hub including brewery, resto-bar, and hotel resort over Ac.2.40 cents in Sy.No.314 of Kapuluppadu Revenue Village – Structures erected within CRZ-notified coastal area without obtaining any building permission from Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation as required under the APMC Act – Union of India confirmed no permissions had been granted by Ministry of Environment and Forests – CRZ-2020 notification not brought into force, leaving CRZ-2011 in operation – Held: Structures are clearly illegal and liable to be removed [Paras 3–7].

Principles of Natural Justice – Adequate Opportunity – Tourism Development Corporation's contention that demolition order dated 19.11.2025 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice rejected – Corporation had been served notices, filed explanation on 09.04.2025 which was disposed of on 25.04.2025 – Multiple inspections conducted by GVMC – Corporation failed to produce any valid building permission at any stage – Held: Adequate opportunity was afforded; no violation of natural justice made out [Paras 10–11].

Rule of Law – State Entities – No Exemption – Tourism Development Corporation contended that impugned demolition order could not have been passed as structures were set up by a Government entity pursuant to government policy – Court firmly rejected this contention – Held: Law of the land applies equally to State entities; the adage "Howsoever high you may be, the Law is above you" holds good – State Corporations enjoy no special protection or exemption from statutory provisions [Para 10].

Decision: W.P.(PIL) No. 110 of 2018 allowed – W.P. No. 625 of 2026 dismissed – Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, directed to implement demolition order dated 19.11.2025 within three weeks from receipt of this order – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, stand closed [Para 12].

Criminal Revision – Acceptance of Final Report – Defective Investigation – Petitioner (former MLA) lodged FIR alleging that accused persons forged his B.Com. certificates from Dibrugarh University to damage his reputation on the eve of Assembly Elections – Upon investigation, I.O. found discrepancies in mark sheet and submitted Final Report concluding case to be false; simultaneously filed counter-prosecution under Section 211 IPC – Learned CJM, Jorhat issued notice to petitioner, considered objection, and accepted Final Report vide impugned order dated 17.02.2018 – Petitioner challenged order on grounds of perfunctory investigation, non-examination of Principal of J.B. College, non-recording of his statement, non-seizure of relevant documents, and pendency of Title Suit – Held: Petition devoid of merit; dismissed [Paras 7-15].

Investigation – Non-Seizure of Documents – Discretion of Investigating Officer – I.O. seized photo copy of Original Tabulation Sheet from Controller of Examination, Dibrugarh University but did not seize documents enclosed with FIR by petitioner – Held: Investigating officer is not bound to seize every document produced by the complainant – He has discretion to decide which document is relevant and necessary for investigation – I.O. had taken relevant documents to University, verified them with University authority and found Mark Sheet of petitioner incorrect – Omission to seize those documents caused no dent to the investigation [Paras 11-11.3].

Investigation – Non-Examination of College Principal – No Infirmity – I.O. did not examine Principal of J.B. College who issued certificate and mark sheet to petitioner – Held: University is the final authority to declare whether a student passed or failed and to issue mark sheet and certificate – Since I.O. had examined Controller of Examination and recorded his statement, non-examination of Principal of J.B. College had no bearing on outcome of investigation [Para 12].

Civil Court Findings – Binding Effect on Criminal Court – Petitioner's contention that finding of Civil Court in pending Title Suit No. 49/2017 is binding on Criminal Court – Held: Criminal court decides criminal liability independently – There is no statutory rule that a finding in one proceeding is final and binding in the other – Civil court decision is relevant only if conditions of Sections 40–43 of the Evidence Act are satisfied but cannot be conclusive except as provided in Section 41 – Decision in Shanti Kumar Panda (supra) distinguished as it arose under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and not applicable to present facts [Paras 13-13.3].

Presumption of Genuineness – Official Records – Section 80, Indian Evidence Act – When a document purports to be a record of a court or public officer and is produced as such, court presumes its genuineness and that person signing it held the judicial or official character claimed – Presumption applicable unless evidence to contrary is presented [Para 10.1].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 17.02.2018 passed by CJM, Jorhat accepting Final Report upheld – Parties to bear their own costs – Record of court below to be sent down forthwith.

Agreement to Sell – Recovery of Earnest Money – NOC Obligation – Breach by Seller – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff paid Rs. 80,75,000/- as advance consideration for purchase of 15 Bighas 4 Biswas of agricultural land – Agreement to Sell dated 18.07.2007 required the seller to obtain NOC from Revenue Authorities and Land Acquisition Collector – Defendants failed to apply for or obtain the NOC despite repeated reminders and duly filled NOC forms being supplied by the Plaintiff on the date of Agreement – Held: Breach of Agreement to Sell was on the part of the Defendants; Plaintiff was justified in seeking refund of earnest money – Trial Court decree upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 44, 52, 55, 56, 61, 62, 67].

Limitation – Cause of Action – Accrual from Date of Repudiation, Not Date of Contract – Appellants contended the suit filed on 19.07.2010 was barred by limitation as the Agreement to Sell was dated 18.07.2007 – Held: Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation is reckoned from when the facts entitling the Plaintiff to have the contract rescinded first became known to him – In a contract of sale, right to sue for refund accrues when the contract is repudiated or the promisor refuses to perform, not from the date of the contract – Legal Notice dated 06.06.2008 constituted the earliest point of repudiation; suit filed on 19.07.2010 was within limitation [Paras 37, 39, 40, 41].

Section 33, Delhi Land Reforms Act – NOC Obligation on Seller – Bar Operates at Stage of Actual Transfer – No Bhumidar can sell land where the result of transfer would leave him with less than 08 standard acres in Delhi – Section 33(2) permits transfer of entire holding if less than 08 acres – Held: It was the Defendants/Appellants as owners and sellers who bore the obligation to obtain NOC and overcome restrictions of Section 33 DLR Act – The bar under Section 33 operates at the stage of actual transfer of Bhumidhari rights and does not render an Agreement to Sell per se void or incapable of enforcement between the parties [Paras 49, 50, 51].

Partnership Act – Section 69 – Bar Inapplicable – No Formal Partnership – Appellants argued that an unregistered partnership between the Plaintiff and M/s Raisina Villas Pvt. Ltd. attracted the bar of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act – Held: There was no formal partnership as understood under the Partnership Act; parties had merely pooled funds for a single purchase transaction – The Plaintiff, having returned Rs. 45,00,000/- to M/s Raisina Villas Pvt. Ltd., became solely entitled to recover the entire amount – Bar of Section 69 not attracted [Paras 63, 64, 65].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 24.09.2022 of the learned Additional District Judge upheld – Pending applications disposed of.

Service Law – Transfer – CRPF – Premature Transfer Before Completion of Normal Tenure – Limited Relief – Petitioner (Commandant, 142 BN CRPF, Golaghat, Assam) challenged Transfer Order dated 10.01.2025 directing his transfer to South Zone, Hyderabad before completion of normal tenure of 3 years (joined 28.03.2023) – Petitioner contended transfer violated Standing Order No. 07/2014 prescribing 3-year tenure and Article 14 of the Constitution as no reasons were assigned – Respondents contended that Standing Order No. 07/2014 was superseded by Standing Order No. 5/22 dated 27.09.2022 which permits transfer before completion of tenure on administrative or operational requirements – Petitioner had already joined new place of posting; no interim stay granted; more than 3 years completed during pendency – Held: Transfer is an incident of service and no employee has a vested right to remain posted at a particular place – However, where normal tenure is prescribed, transfer before its completion ordinarily requires justification by administrative reasons – Impugned order did not assign any reason – Court not inclined to interfere at this stage but grants limited relief [Paras 10-14].

Transfer – Allegations of Misconduct – Preliminary Investigation – Petitioner transferred allegedly on basis of complaints of misuse of official position and conduct affecting discipline – Preliminary investigation found all allegations baseless and factually incorrect – Held: Disputed nature of allegations found to be baseless after investigation is a relevant consideration warranting limited relief to petitioner [Para 14].

Promotion – Field Command Service – No Immediate Prejudice – Petitioner contended premature transfer would leave him short of mandatory 3-month field command service required for promotion from Commandant to DIG – Respondents clarified petitioner has around 8–10 years remaining to fulfil service conditions for promotion to DIG – Held: No immediate prejudice caused on account of promotion; merit found in respondents' submission [Paras 7-8, 12].

Armed Forces – Scope of Judicial Interference – Transfer Orders – Held: Scope of interference by courts in regard to members of armed forces is far more limited and narrow; courts should be extremely slow in interfering with transfer orders of such personnel unless an exceptionally strong case is made out – Relied upon: J.K. Bansal (Major General) v. Union of India, (2005) 7 SCC 227 [Para 4].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of with limited relief – Petitioner directed to submit representation indicating preferred place/zone of posting within 3 weeks from receipt of order – Competent authority to consider the same sympathetically keeping in view petitioner's service profile and pass a reasoned order within 8 weeks of receipt of representation – Any action on alleged misconduct to be undertaken strictly in accordance with law and after following due process.

Bail – Gang Rape and Murder of Minor – First Petition – Refused – Petitioner attributed principal role in kidnapping, administering sedatives, gang rape, and murder of an 8-year-old Bakarwal girl – In custody since 19.01.2018 (over 8 years) – Out of 309 witnesses, only 41 examined – Held: Despite prolonged incarceration, bail cannot be granted as a matter of course where gravity and nature of the offence shock the collective and judicial conscience – Prima facie case established; long custody by itself cannot entitle petitioner to bail – Prayer for regular bail declined [Paras 7].

Bail Jurisprudence – Prolonged Incarceration – No Automatic Entitlement – Petitioner contended long custody of 8 years and slow pace of trial warrant release – Held: There is no straight-jacket formula that an accused is automatically entitled to bail on ground of prolonged incarceration – Discretion must be exercised considering intrinsic merits of the case and gravity of charge – In cases involving serious and gruesome crimes, courts must balance rights of the victim, society, and the accused [Paras 4, 6].

Bail – Relevant Considerations – Factors to be Weighed – Nature and gravity of charge, severity of punishment, likelihood of witnesses being tampered, danger of justice being thwarted, prima facie evidence, and the role of the accused are all relevant considerations – Mere period of incarceration or unlikelihood of trial concluding soon is insufficient to enlarge accused on bail when charges carry life imprisonment or death penalty [Paras 4, 5, 6].

Trial Court – Expeditious Trial – Directed – Considering the considerable delay in trial and the long period of custody of the petitioner, the Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and conclude it preferably within one year from the date of order [Para 7].

Decision: Petition for regular bail dismissed – Trial Court directed to conclude trial preferably within one year.

Revenue Law – Mutation – Principles of Natural Justice – Order Passed Without Notice – Set Aside – Petitioner Neelam Kumar Swain purchased the case land by registered sale deed and mutation was allowed in her favour by the Tahasildar – On appeal by M/s. Thriveni Earthmovers, the Sub-Collector remitted the matter to the Tahasildar for fresh hearing – Order on remand was passed by the Tahasildar without issuing any notice to the parties – Held: Non-issuance of notice constitutes a clear violation of principles of natural justice rendering the order unsustainable – Order set aside and Tahasildar directed to re-hear the mutation case after affording opportunity to all necessary parties within two months [Paras 10, 12].

Mutation Appeal – Order of Remand – Challenge to Validity – No Fruitful Purpose at This Stage – Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 7001 of 2026 challenged the Sub-Collector's order of remand on the ground that the appellate authority ought to have adjudicated the lis on merits rather than remitting the matter – Held: Since the order passed on remand has itself been set aside and the matter is being remitted again for fresh hearing with proper notice, no fruitful purpose would be served by interfering with the order of the appellate authority at this stage [Para 11].

Appearance Before Appellate Authority – Knowledge of Proceedings – Petitioner Neelam Kumar Swain had entered appearance before the Sub-Collector in the mutation appeal and had submitted an affidavit which was taken on record – Held: She cannot contend that she had no knowledge of the appellate proceedings – The infirmity arises only in the subsequent remand proceedings before the Tahasildar where no notice was issued [Para 10].

Decision: W.P.(C) No. 34733 of 2025 allowed – Order of the Tahasildar in Mutation Case No. 12024 of 2025 dated 28.07.2025 set aside – Tahasildar directed to re-hear and dispose of the mutation case after affording opportunity to all parties within two months – W.P.(C) No. 7001 of 2026 disposed of accordingly.

Custodial Violence – Compensation – Adverse Inference from Absence of CCTV Footage – Petitioner allegedly assaulted by police constables Nagendra and Utkarsh of P.S. Lasudiya, Indore, in the early hours of 29.12.2025, both at the spot and inside the police station for about one and a half hours – Photographs of injuries filed on record – Petitioner taken to an inner room of the police station not covered by CCTV cameras during 2:41 a.m. to 2:45 a.m., and sounds of beating audible in the footage – Statements of petitioner's friends corroborated the assault – State denied allegations and relied on FSL report showing no deleted files on petitioner's phone – Held: Non-availability of CCTV visuals of an incident occurring near and inside a police station is not natural and sufficient to draw an adverse inference against delinquent officers – Compensation of Rs. 10,000/- awarded – CCTV footage directed to be preserved [Paras 11-13].

Body-Worn Cameras – Criminal Waste of Public Resources – Absence of SOP – Out of 442 body-worn cameras distributed to Indore Police Commissionerate, only two allotted to Lasudiya Police Station, and those used solely for traffic violations – No SOP framed for use and monitoring of body-worn cameras – Held: Such state of affairs is pathetic and amounts to a criminal waste of public resources – Complete ignorance or conscious disregard on the part of officers in adopting new technology noted [Para 14].

Police Accountability – Systemic Directions – CCTV Coverage and Body-Worn Cameras – Court's earlier concern in M.Cr.C. No. 34624/2024 dated 19.09.2024 regarding body cameras not acted upon – Held: State Government directed to ensure that accused or complainants shall not be taken to areas of police stations not covered by CCTV cameras – All police personnel in at least the top five crime-registering police stations out of the thirty-five-odd stations in Indore Police Commissionerate to be provided body-worn cameras within nine months – SOP to be prepared for wearing cameras while on duty – Necessary infrastructure to be provided to Indore Police Commissionerate – Compliance report to be submitted on next date of hearing [Paras 12-16].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Compensation of Rs. 10,000/- awarded to petitioner – CCTV footage and records directed to be preserved – State Government directed to implement systemic directions regarding CCTV coverage and body-worn cameras within nine months – Matter listed on 04.01.2027 for compliance – Copy of order directed to be sent to Principal Secretary (General Administration), Secretary (Home/Police), Director General of Police, and Commissioner of Indore Police.

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Pensionary Consequences – Rule 47 of the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995 – Charges of misuse of cover notes, irregular underwriting, and questionable claims handling during service at Divisional Office No. 17, New Delhi – Memorandum of charges issued in 2009, inquiry report dated 12.08.2019, penalty order dated 22.03.2021 imposing permanent withholding of full pension under Rules 42 and 44 of the Pension Scheme – Held: Proceedings fall properly under Rule 47 of the Pension Scheme; the infelicity of citing Rules 42 and 44 in the final order does not vitiate jurisdiction – Petitioner fails on challenges to competence of Disciplinary Authority, non-est status of CDA Rules, continuation after retirement, and perversity of findings – However, order set aside on the limited ground of non-compliance with mandatory Board consultation under the first proviso to Rule 47 – Matter remitted for fresh decision [Paras 29-32, 42-49, 73-77].

Competence of Disciplinary Authority – Redesignation of Cadres – Petitioner designated "Deputy Manager" after redesignation of Scale III officers with effect from 21.12.2005 – Challenge that memorandum should have been issued by General Manager and not Deputy General Manager rejected – Held: The expressions "Deputy Manager" in relation to the Petitioner referred to the redesignated Scale III cadre and not the old Scale IV cadre; the Deputy General Manager was the competent disciplinary authority – Reliance on B.V. Gopinath inapplicable as the foundational fact of incompetence not established [Paras 18-22].

CDA Rules – Non-est Challenge – Gazette Publication – Petitioner's contention that CDA Rules are non-est for want of gazette publication and laying before Parliament rejected – Held: K.T. Uthappa was a criminal proceeding and its observations cannot be read as laying down a general proposition invalidating all disciplinary proceedings under the CDA Rules; K. Rajendra Kumar (Madras High Court Division Bench), upheld by the Supreme Court, has categorically so clarified [Paras 23-25].

Continuation of Proceedings Post-Retirement – Rule 47, Second Proviso – Petitioner superannuated on 31.08.2013 while proceedings were pending – Held: Second proviso to Rule 47 of the Pension Scheme expressly provides that departmental proceedings instituted during service shall, after retirement, be deemed to continue under that provision and be concluded in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service – Dev Prakash Tewari inapplicable where enabling provision exists [Paras 26-28].

Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings – Allegations 2004-2006; charge-sheet 2009; inquiry report 2019; final order 2021 – Held: Prem Nath Bali does not lay down that delay by itself vitiates proceedings; the question is whether delay caused prejudice impairing fairness – Petitioner himself contributed substantially to delay by non-appearance, partial cross-examination of only one witness, non-submission of defence brief, and closure of proceedings for non-participation; delay therefore cannot be attributed solely to employer [Paras 33-36].

Non-Participation in Inquiry – Effect on Scope of Judicial Review – Petitioner filed written defence but failed to effectively pursue it; proceedings closed on 29.06.2018 due to non-participation – Held: Where the Petitioner did not contest the inquiry on merits, he cannot invite the writ court to reconstruct a case not pursued at the appropriate stage; interference warranted only where findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or vitiated by breach of natural justice [Paras 51-53, 69-70].

Misconduct – Six Articles of Charge Proved – Cover Note Episodes and Underwriting Irregularities – Articles I–IV: cover-note books issued to Petitioner; cover notes not deposited with office; premiums not accounted; Company exposed to consumer and MACT claims – Petitioner's defence of broker/agent misuse remained a pleaded explanation unsubstantiated by evidence – Articles V and VI: break-in insurance issued without pre-inspection; claim of INR 53,799/- processed despite discrepancies; policy issued in name of person other than registered owner; claim of INR 46,331/- approved – Held: Findings neither baseless nor perverse – CBI closure order in criminal case does not affect disciplinary findings as criminal and departmental proceedings operate on distinct standards of proof [Paras 54-68].

Board Consultation – Mandatory Safeguard – Rule 47, First Proviso – Held: Where disciplinary proceedings instituted during service are continued post-retirement under Rule 47, the first proviso mandating prior consultation with the Board of the Corporation or Company before passing any final order is imperative and cannot be bypassed by resort to Rule 42 alone – No material on record showing such consultation was undertaken prior to penalty order dated 22.03.2021 or addendum dated 13.05.2021 – Reliance placed on Vijay Kumar v. Central Bank of India, 2025 INSC 848 – Post facto approval is not a substitute for prior consultation – Pension is a valuable right and statutory safeguards governing its curtailment must be strictly observed [Paras 42-49].

Decision: W.P.(C) 8050/2013 disposed of — relief of promotion not pressed; subsistence allowance claim treated as worked out in view of payment of INR 90,206/- – W.P.(C) 1676/2023 partly allowed — penalty order dated 22.03.2021 and addendum dated 13.05.2021 set aside on the limited ground of non-compliance with first proviso to Rule 47 – Communication dated 07.06.2021 also set aside as consequential – Matter remitted to competent authority of Respondent Company for fresh decision on pensionary consequence only, after Board consultation and hearing to Petitioner, within eight weeks – Disciplinary findings not disturbed – If fresh decision not taken within eight weeks, Petitioner entitled to full pension from date of superannuation.