Slum Rehabilitation Scheme – Deemed NOC under Regulation 2.8 of DCPR 2034 – Petition Allowed - Developer sought implementation of approved SRA scheme including D.P. Road occupants as PAPs, but faced obstruction despite fulfilling pre-conditions including deposit of rent and eligibility certification – Held: MCGM’s NOC was deemed granted after 60 days under Regulation 2.8 – refusal to issue CC was unjustified [Paras 2-22, 27].

Administrative Interference – Political Influence in Executive Action – Directions Quashed - Complaint by local MLA opposing LOI was found to be a proxy attempt by a rival developer – Minister's intervention through a hearing notice was beyond jurisdiction and without legal basis – Held: Such executive interference without authority is illegal – notice dated 14.05.2025 and consequential actions quashed [Paras 6, 21-24, 28-30, 36(C)].

Consent and Compliance – Compliance with Circular No. 144 – Validated - Objections to lack of 51% consent and area variance rejected – Held: Developer had over 54% consent even including PAPs – SRA had approved fresh proposal due to inability to independently develop D.P. Road – LOI and IOA validly reinstated as per earlier High Court and Supreme Court decisions [Paras 14-18].

Execution of Eviction – Failure by Authorities to Act – Directions Issued - Despite confirmed eviction orders upheld by AGRC, Respondent Authorities failed to execute evictions, citing political pressure – Held: Authorities directed to execute eviction and take all steps for time-bound implementation of the scheme [Paras 20, 23, 36(D)].

Undertakings to Supreme Court – Binding Nature – Developer's Duty - The Petitioner had given an undertaking before the Supreme Court to rehabilitate 164 original and 47 PAP slum dwellers – Held: That undertaking must be honoured in full – directions issued for finalisation of Annexure-II including certified PAPs [Paras 9, 24, 36(E)].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed - Hearing notice dated 14.05.2025 issued by Minister quashed – Respondents directed to finalise Annexure-II, issue Commencement Certificate and ensure implementation of SRA Scheme within stipulated time in accordance with directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and prior judicial orders – Costs imposed on Respondent No. 9 for frivolous litigation [Paras 36(A)-(F)].

Civil Law - Limitation – Recovery of Possession – Article 65 of the Limitation Act – Suit Barred – Plaintiff filed suit in 2010 claiming recovery of possession based on title – Defendant relied on continuous possession since 1996 based on unregistered agreement of sale – Revenue records from 1997 supported defendant’s possession – Plaintiff admitted knowledge of such possession – Held: Suit for possession filed after 13 years was barred under Article 65 of the Limitation Act – Trial Court erred in presuming dispossession in 2002 without evidence – Decree set aside [Paras 25-26, 43-45, 47].

Part Performance – Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act – Protection Denied – Defendant claimed protection under Section 53-A relying on Ex.B1 (agreement of sale) – Agreement was unregistered, lacked attesting witnesses, and did not contain recital for execution of sale deed – Plaintiff denied executing it, and PW2 (defendant’s own father) testified agreement was fabricated – Held: Defendant failed to establish valid possession under Ex.B1 – No protection available under Section 53-A [Paras 21-23, 27.1–27.5].

Ownership Claim – Boundaries and Extent – Plaintiff admitted alienation of 32 guntas – However, continued to claim title over remaining 6 acres – Trial Court declared plaintiff as owner of 6 acres – Held: Boundaries largely consistent – Sale of 32 guntas did not alter suit boundaries – But suit ultimately barred by limitation, and title claim not adjudicated [Paras 27.10, 28.1, 41].

Previous Litigation – No Res Judicata – Earlier suit for injunction dismissed on finding of possession with defendant – Present suit for title and recovery not barred – Earlier judgment did not conclusively adjudicate ownership or bar new suit – Held: Trial Court rightly found no res judicata – However, claim failed on limitation [Paras 5.4, 27.5, 44].

Final Decision – Decree Set Aside – Appeal Allowed – Held: Plaintiff failed to file suit within 12 years from when defendant’s possession became adverse – Suit barred by limitation – Decree of Trial Court reversed – Plaintiff’s suit dismissed without costs [Paras 45, 47, 48].

Criminal Law – Cheating & Breach of Trust – Settlement through MOU – Complainant alleged misuse of signatures and cheating of ₹4 crores – FIR 355/2008 registered – During investigation, parties entered into MOU (14.06.2008) where petitioners paid ₹5 crores in full and final settlement, both agreed to withdraw civil/criminal cases – Once complainant accepted benefit, he cannot later approbate and reprobate by filing fresh complaints – Criminal proceedings for same allegations unsustainable [Paras 7-11].

Closure Report – Effect – FIR 355/2008 closed as civil in nature, accepted by Trial Court on 05.08.2011 – Protest petition later dismissed for default – Subsequent protest petition after long delay impermissible – Once closure report accepted, criminal proceedings attain finality – Fresh complaints barred [Paras 9, 12, 13].

Further Investigation – Limits – Trial Court ordered reinvestigation u/s 156(3) CrPC in 2018 – Held improper – Power to direct further investigation is extraordinary and sparingly exercisable – Where closure report based on settlement already accepted, directing reinvestigation defeats finality – Reliance placed on Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762 [Paras 12, 13].

Doctrines – Estoppel & Approbate/Reprobate – Complainant, having received ₹5 crores in settlement, estopped from denying binding effect of MOU – Cannot blow hot and cold – Repeated complaints constitute abuse of process [Para 11].

Standard for Discharge – At charge stage, Court must examine if prima facie case exists – Here, entire case rested on allegations already settled – No new evidence unearthed in further investigation – Cognizance by Magistrate held mechanical without considering earlier closure and settlement – Discharge warranted [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Order of XI Metropolitan Magistrate dated 22.11.2024 dismissing discharge petition set aside – Petitioners discharged in C.C. No. 1163 of 2023 – Criminal revision allowed – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 14].

Temporary Injunction – Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC – Trespasser vs. True Owner – Refusal of relief – Plaintiff sought injunction on basis of alleged long possession over Survey No.643; no sale deed or lawful title produced; Khasra entry of 1990–91 held baseless—Held: Injunction cannot be granted to protect unlawful possession against true owner; concurrent findings of Civil Court and Appellate Court upheld [Paras 14–20].

Revenue Entries – Section 115 MP Land Revenue Code – Collector’s permission mandatory – Orders quashed – SDO ordered correction of entries without Collector’s recommendation; appellate orders affirmed same—Held: Though findings justified on merits, procedure under Section 115 must be complied with; orders of 26.11.2019 and 05.04.2021 quashed; matter remanded to SDO to obtain Collector’s permission and pass fresh orders [Para 21].

Decision – M.P. No.1564/2022 dismissed (no injunction) – M.P. No.1722/2021 partly allowed by quashing revenue appellate orders; case remanded to SDO for fresh decision [Para 22].

Examination Law - Civil Writ - OMR Evaluation – Incorrect Bubbling of Roll Number – DSSSB Exams – Petitions filed against conflicting CAT orders involving identical issues – One candidate’s OMR sheet was evaluated despite incorrect bubbling and later rejected, while the other’s was not evaluated at all – Held: If the OMR was already evaluated and candidate declared successful, later rejection is impermissible; where OMR was not evaluated due to technical default, no relief can be granted [Paras 1-5, 35-36, 42-46, 56].

Procedural Error – Evaluation of OMR Answer Sheets – Candidate Benefited by Prior Evaluation – Relief Granted - In W.P.(C) 1282/2025 (Kusum Gupta), despite bubbling error, candidate’s OMR sheet was evaluated and she was shortlisted – Later rejection deemed arbitrary – Directed that appointment letter be issued subject to eligibility – Entitled to notional benefits without actual pay [Paras 38-43, 56].

Instructions to Candidates – Mandatory Nature – Mistakes in Bubbling Roll Number – Strict Compliance Required - In W.P.(C) 17595/2024 (Niharika Puhan), OMR sheet not evaluated due to incorrect bubbling – Despite writing roll number correctly in digits, non-compliance with explicit instructions proved fatal – Tribunal’s order set aside – Petition dismissed [Paras 31-33, 49-53, 55].

Relief Limited to Litigating Candidate – No Reopening of Entire Result - Court clarified that similar candidates disqualified for identical reasons cannot claim automatic relief unless they have approached Tribunal/Court – Judgment confined to litigating party [Paras 47-48].

Role of Invigilators – Countersigning OMR – Responsibility to Detect Errors – Considered but Not Determinative - Though Court noted invigilator countersigned the OMR sheets, this factor alone does not excuse candidate’s responsibility to fill details accurately [Paras 36-39].

Decision – Petition by DSSSB in W.P.(C) 17595/2024 Allowed – Tribunal’s Order Set Aside – Petition by Kusum Gupta in W.P.(C) 1282/2025 Allowed – DSSSB Directed to Issue Appointment Letter within Eight Weeks – Relief Limited to Present Litigants [Paras 55-57].

Service Law – Examination – Judicial Review of Answer Key – Manifest Error in Law – Interference Warranted - Petitioners challenged the official answer key for Question No. 28 in Set 'K', concerning a Magistrate’s power under Cr.P.C. – Court found that the correct answer was both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, whereas HSSC had opted only for cognizable – Held: Where the answer is manifestly wrong and statutory provision (Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.) clearly provides otherwise, Court can interfere even in academic matters – Answer key to that extent is incorrect [Paras 7-12].

Answer Key – Expert Committee Report – Limited Interference – No Roving Inquiry by Court - While answer to Question No. 28 was found to be clearly erroneous in law, Court refused to interfere with answers to other questions like Question No. 94 where dispute was based on comparison between different sets – Held: Court is not an expert body and will not conduct roving inquiry unless manifest illegality is shown [Paras 13-14].

Recruitment Process – Consistency Across Multiple Sets – Responsibility of Examining Body - Court noted concern that differing answers across question paper sets for identical questions leads to confusion and litigation – Suggested that recruitment bodies must ensure internal consistency across all versions of papers [Para 16].

Decision – Petition Partly Allowed – Answer Key Rectified for Question No. 28 – Matter Remitted - Court held that HSSC’s answer to Question No. 28 in Set 'K' was legally incorrect – Directed Commission to re-evaluate the performance of petitioners in light of the correct answer and take further action as per rules – No interference made with other disputed questions [Paras 15-16].

Civil Law - Will – Execution by Literate Testator with Thumb Impression – Section 63 of Succession Act – No Suspicion – Challenge Rejected – Appellants argued Will not read over and explained, testator affixed LTI despite being literate, creating suspicion – Held: Evidence of attesting witness proved LTI was affixed due to old age and trembling hands – Testator was an experienced law clerk, fully aware of implications – Section 63(c) permits execution either by signature or mark – No suspicious circumstance established [Paras 25–31].

Attestation – Compliance with Section 63(c) Succession Act – Proof Sufficient – Though PW2 did not expressly state other attesting witness signed in presence of testator, evidence cumulatively showed both attesting witnesses and testator executed simultaneously – No counter-suggestion in cross-examination – Substantial compliance proved – Probate Court rightly accepted execution [Paras 32–37].

Suspicious Circumstances – Two Wills Executed on Same Date – Allegation of Coercion – Rejected – Evidence showed testator executed two Wills at Barasat and Salt Lake on same day – Both admitted by objectors – Even if both existed, beneficiaries were either sons or their sons (grandsons), leaving no motive for fabrication – Reciprocal nature of parents’ Wills natural, not suspicious – Alleged abduction by sons not proved as crucial witness Namita did not testify – Complaint lodged belatedly and treated as afterthought – Hence, allegations of coercion rejected [Paras 43–48, 51–53].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Application Dismissed – Objectors sought to introduce police complaint and second Will at appellate stage – Both documents were already available earlier but not exhibited – No valid ground for belated production – CAN 3 and CAN 4 of 2025 dismissed [Paras 44–47, 55–56].

Decision – Execution and attestation of Will substantially proved – No suspicious circumstances found – Probate Court’s order affirmed – First Appeal dismissed – Probate of Will dated 07.01.2004 in favour of respondent upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 54, 57–59].

Criminal Law - Kidnapping – Enticing Minor Girl – Section 363 IPC – Conviction Upheld - The appellant enticed the 15-year-old victim from her father’s shop on the pretext of watching a movie with false representation of parental consent – Thereafter, he threatened her and took her to another city – Held: The act constitutes kidnapping from lawful guardianship under Section 361 IPC and punishable under Section 363 – Documentary evidence like high school marksheet proving minority prevails over medical opinion – Conviction under Section 363 upheld [Paras 3-6, 13, 20-21].

Kidnapping to Compel Marriage – Section 366 IPC – Threat and Confinement – Offence Established - After taking the girl to Agra and watching a movie, the appellant proposed marriage and issued threats to compel her – Victim was confined in the house of appellant’s relative under false identity – Escaped and lodged FIR – Held: Compulsion, threat and intent to marry make out offence under Section 366 IPC – Conviction and sentence sustained [Paras 7, 14, 20-21].

Minor’s Age – Evidentiary Value – High School Certificate Prevails Over Medical Opinion - Appellant claimed victim was above 18 and had gone voluntarily – Court held that high school marksheet clearly indicated victim was 15 at time of incident – Medical opinion indicating 16-18 years not decisive in light of documentary proof – Victim’s minority proved [Paras 4, 13, 21].

Free Consent – Not Applicable to Minor – Threat Perception Evident - Despite absence of resistance during public travel, victim’s testimony revealed coercion and fear – Once minor, her “consent” is legally immaterial – Passive compliance under threat cannot negate offence – Conduct of victim consistent with fear-induced obedience until she found opportunity to escape [Paras 13-14, 20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Affirmed – Appellant to Surrender - The Court upheld the conviction under Sections 363 and 366 IPC – Found no illegality or perversity in Trial Court’s judgment dated 24.08.1983 – Directed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra to take the appellant into custody to serve remaining sentence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-23].

Advocates Act, 1961 - Professional Misconduct – No Advocate-Client Relationship – Complaint Dismissed – The appellant alleged professional misconduct against advocates representing opposing parties in an NI Act case – Bar Council of Delhi dismissed the complaint for lack of fiduciary relationship – The BCI affirmed that no professional misconduct is made out as the advocates acted per their client's instructions and no duty exists to verify client claims – Dismissal upheld [Paras 1.1–1.2, 6].

Advocate’s Duty – Representation Based on Client Instructions – No Obligation to Investigate Case Merits – The Court reiterated that an advocate cannot be faulted for representing a client without independently verifying the client’s version – Held: The duty of truth verification lies with the Court, not the advocate – No misconduct for representing a client whose case may later be held untrue [Paras 1.2–1.3, 7].

Rule 4, BCI Rules – Not a Bar on Representation – Rule Misinterpreted – The appellant argued that Rule 4 prohibits being a ‘mere mouthpiece’ – Court clarified that this rule does not mandate preliminary inquiry into a client's claims – No violation of ethical standards found [Para 1.3].

Fiduciary Duty – Opposing Counsel Not Bound – The Court held that lawyers representing adverse parties owe no fiduciary duty to the appellant – No professional breach arises without a lawyer-client relationship – Complaint under Section 35 of Advocates Act found untenable [Paras 4, 6].

Alleged Perjury – Independent Criminal Remedy Available – Allegations of fabricated evidence already subject to proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Held: Such issues are for determination by the concerned court, not through disciplinary action against opposing counsel [Para 5].

Decision – Intra-Court Appeal Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – The High Court found no illegality in the Single Judge’s order rejecting writ petition against Bar Council orders – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs [Paras 8–9].