Land Acquisition – National Highways Act, 1956 – Successive Declarations under Section 3D – Validity – Challenge to second notification dated 10.07.2024 issued under Section 3D(1) without issuing a fresh Section 3A notification – Allegation of change in alignment and arbitrary inclusion of petitioner’s land – Court held that no change in alignment was established – Issuance of two Section 3D notifications necessitated due to obstruction by landowners preventing survey – Both notifications part of same acquisition proceedings and issued within one year of Section 3A notification – Act, 1956 does not prohibit successive Section 3D declarations – Second notification held valid [Paras 6.2.1–6.2.13].

National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3C – Right of Objection – Limited Scope – Petitioner alleged denial of opportunity to file objections before issuance of second Section 3D notification – Section 3A notification duly published in Gazette and newspapers – Petitioner failed to file objections within statutory period – Right under Section 3C confined only to objection regarding use of land and not acquisition per se – Failure to object within time disentitles petitioner from raising grievance later – No violation of principles of natural justice found [Paras 6.3.1–6.3.9].

Land Acquisition – Vesting of Land – Bar of Judicial Challenge – Upon publication of declaration under Section 3D(1), land vests absolutely in Central Government under Section 3D(2) – Section 3D(4) bars challenge to such declaration before any court – Once vesting takes place, acquisition cannot be interdicted in writ jurisdiction [Paras 6.4.4–6.4.5, 7.1].

Compensation – Section 3G(3) – Alleged Procedural Lapse – Remedy under Section 3G(5) – Petitioner contended non-compliance with mandatory requirement of public notice before determination of compensation – Court held that even assuming procedural irregularity, it would not vitiate acquisition – Dispute relates to quantum and classification of land – Statutory remedy of arbitration under Section 3G(5) held to be efficacious – Writ petition not maintainable on this ground [Paras 6.4.1–6.4.6].

Judicial Review – Highway Projects – Limited Interference – Decisions regarding alignment, feasibility and extent of land acquisition lie within domain of technical experts – Courts not equipped to evaluate technical and policy considerations – Interference warranted only in cases of patent illegality or mala fides – No mala fides or statutory violation established in present case [Paras 6.5.1–6.5.4].

Public Interest vs. Private Interest – Infrastructure Projects – Widening and four-laning of NH-334D held to be project of national importance – Individual hardship cannot override larger public interest – Appropriate relief lies in fair compensation rather than quashing acquisition – Balance struck in favour of public interest while safeguarding right to seek enhanced compensation [Paras 6.6.1–6.6.5, 7.3–7.4].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Acquisition proceedings upheld – Liberty granted to petitioner to seek enhancement of compensation through arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 – Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on merits of compensation or classification of land [Paras 8–8.1].

Service Law – Promotion – Vigilance Case – Select List – Exclusion – Government servant included in select list for promotion as Commercial Tax Officer – Subsequently suspended and subjected to vigilance enquiry – FIR registered by Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau after preliminary enquiry – Held: Registration of FIR in vigilance case after preliminary enquiry disentitles officer from inclusion in select list for promotion [Paras 14–19].

Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules – Rule 28(b)(i)(7) Note (i) – Interpretation – Officers against whom vigilance proceedings are initiated after prima facie establishment of charges in preliminary enquiry shall not be included in select list – Distinction between ordinary criminal cases and vigilance cases reiterated – Tribunal erred in overlooking statutory mandate [Paras 16–19].

Vigilance Case – Prosecution Sanction – Relevance – Sanction for prosecution and filing of final report are not decisive for determining eligibility for promotion – Once FIR is registered pursuant to preliminary enquiry with Government approval, officer becomes ineligible for inclusion in select list – Tribunal’s reliance on date of filing final report held misconceived [Paras 6–7, 19].

Departmental Promotion Committee – Sealed Cover Procedure – In cases of pending vigilance proceedings, DPC is bound to assess suitability and adopt sealed cover procedure – Failure to follow sealed cover procedure contrary to law laid down in K.V. Jankiraman and Babu Prasad [Paras 20–22].

Declaration of Probation – Pendency of Vigilance Case – Officer promoted during pendency of vigilance case not entitled to declaration of probation till conclusion of proceedings – Tribunal erred in directing consideration of probation ignoring pending vigilance case [Paras 22–23].

Article 227 – Scope of Interference – Though supervisory jurisdiction is limited, interference justified where Tribunal’s order is contrary to statutory rules and binding precedent – Impugned order found legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside [Paras 8–13, 23].

Decision – Original Petition allowed – Order dated 26.09.2022 of Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1919 of 2019 set aside – Original Application dismissed – Tribunal’s directions for retrospective promotion and declaration of probation quashed [Paras 23–24].

NDPS Act – Sections 21(b) & 22(c) – Conviction Set Aside – Non-compliance of Section 50 – Acquittal – Appellant convicted for possession of cocaine and LSD and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years and five years respectively – On appeal, High Court examined compliance of statutory safeguards under Section 50 NDPS Act – Held: Conviction unsustainable due to gross and total non-compliance of mandatory provisions [Paras 1, 33–36, 40].

Search and Seizure – Section 50 NDPS Act – Mandatory Safeguard – Right of Accused – Prosecution witnesses including complainant and members of raiding team consistently deposed that accused was informed only of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer – No option of being searched before a Magistrate was given – Such partial or defective intimation held to be in direct violation of Section 50(1) NDPS Act [Paras 12–21, 33–35].

Gazetted Officer – Member of Raiding Party – Not Independent – Accused was informed that Dy. S.P., a Gazetted Officer and part of the raiding team, was present at the spot and could conduct the search – Held: A Gazetted Officer who is part of the raiding/investigating team cannot be treated as an independent officer for purposes of Section 50 – Offering such “third option” pollutes the free exercise of statutory right of the accused [Paras 23–26, 32, 36].

Evidence Appreciation – Panch and Police Witnesses – Evidence of PW 1 (panch witness) and PW 2, PW 6, PW 9 (police witnesses) uniformly demonstrated that only one option under Section 50 was conveyed – Court held that even police witnesses failed to establish compliance in letter and spirit – Burden on prosecution not discharged [Paras 15–21, 33–34].

Section 50 NDPS Act – Strict Compliance – No Concept of Substantial Compliance – Reiterating settled law from Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja and Ranjan Kumar Chadha – Section 50 confers a valuable and mandatory right – Failure to strictly comply renders recovery of contraband suspect and vitiates conviction where recovery from personal search is the sole basis [Paras 26, 28, 33–35].

Effect of Violation – Recovery Inadmissible – Since recovery of contraband was effected pursuant to an illegal personal search, same could not be relied upon – Presumption under Section 54 NDPS Act could not be raised – Conviction based solely on such recovery held illegal [Paras 33–36, 39].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and order dated 16.11.2024 quashed and set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Appellant directed to execute P.R. bond under Section 481 BNSS, 2023 [Paras 40–41].

Tenancy Law  – Amendment of Pleadings – Subsequent Events – Article 227 – Interference Declined – Tenant challenged order permitting landlord to amend eviction petition after commencement of trial – Amendment sought to bring on record fact that tenant acquired another shop room in same locality suitable for business – Held: No illegality or perversity in order permitting amendment [Paras 1–4, 8–10].

Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Applicability to Rent Control Proceedings – Landlord sought amendment on ground of subsequent development which came to her knowledge only later – Amendment not claimed as matter of right but on showing due diligence – Rent Control Court justified in exercising discretion to allow amendment [Paras 2–3, 8–9].

Subsequent Events – Relevance in Rent Control Cases – Subsequent acquisition of another shop room by tenant in same municipality has direct bearing on eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act – Such events can be brought on record at any stage to enable court to mould relief and avoid multiplicity of proceedings [Paras 6, 9–10].

Due Diligence – Assessment – Objection of tenant that landlord had prior knowledge of subsequent event rejected – License issued by Municipality dated 01.09.2025 supported landlord’s plea that knowledge was acquired only recently – Plea of lack of due diligence not substantiated [Para 9].

Scope of Article 227 – Limited Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Court will not interfere with interlocutory orders of Rent Control Court unless there is patent illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity – Order permitting amendment found to be reasoned and bona fide [Paras 8–10].

Precedents – Subsequent Events – Reliance placed on Korah Abraham v. Varughis and Benjeena v. Pappachan – Subsequent events may be considered if they have fundamental impact on main issue and do not result in abuse of process – Principles applied to facts of present case [Paras 6, 9–10].

Decision – Original Petition dismissed – Order dated 26.11.2025 permitting amendment upheld – No merit found for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 [Paras 9–10].

Family Pension – Recovery of Excess Payment – Bank Error – Widow Pensioner – Demand Notice Challenged – Excess family pension paid for more than a decade due to mistake of pension disbursing bank – No misrepresentation, fraud or concealment by petitioner – Recovery sought from widow solely dependent on family pension – Held: Recovery impermissible as being harsh, inequitable and arbitrary – Demand notice set aside to extent of outstanding recovery [Paras 1–3, 18–23].

Pension Law – Recovery of Excess Amount – Principles of Equity – Applicability of Rafiq Masih – Recovery from retired employee/family pensioner after long period – Excess payment continued for over 10 years – Court held recovery would cause grave hardship outweighing employer’s right to recover [Paras 12–14, 20–21].

Undertaking for Recovery – Effect – Consent on Dotted Lines – Exploitation – Undertaking furnished by widow authorising recovery from pension – Such undertaking obtained as a matter of routine held insufficient to justify recovery – Reliance placed on Division Bench judgment holding such undertakings exploitative and unenforceable in equity [Paras 22–23].

Pension Payment Order (PPO) – Binding Nature – Correction of Pension – While recovery barred on equitable grounds, petitioner held entitled only to family pension strictly as per PPO prospectively – No right to continue receiving excess pension [Paras 18, 23].

Employer–Employee Relationship – Bank as Disbursing Authority – SBI merely a pension disbursing agent – Excess payment due to clerical error of bank – Recovery from vulnerable pensioner deprecated despite absence of misrepresentation [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned demand notice quashed to extent of remaining recovery – Adjustments already made not interfered with – Family pension payable strictly as per PPO henceforth.

Mining Lease – Deemed Extension – Section 8A(3), MMDR Act – Validity of Original Grant – Minimum Area Requirement – Petitioner sought deemed extension of mining lease for limestone and dolomite granted in 2006 over an extent of 6 acres (2.43 hectares) – Lease rejected on the ground that the area was below the minimum requirement of four hectares under Rule 22-D(c) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 – Held: Though Section 8A(3) provides for deemed extension of validly granted leases to 50 years, such benefit cannot enure to a lease which was void ab initio for being granted in contravention of statutory rules – Deemed extension presupposes existence of a valid lease [Paras 14, 18, 21, 30].

Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 – Rule 22-D – Applicability – Proviso to Rule 22-D – Rule 22-D prescribing minimum lease area came into force on 10.04.2003 – Proviso excluding its applicability applies only to leases granted prior to insertion of the Rule – Mining lease in question granted on 25.01.2006, after Rule 22-D and its proviso came into force – Held: Proviso does not save the lease – Grant of lease for dolomite over area less than four hectares was in clear violation of Rule 22-D(c) [Paras 16, 18, 20].

Void Mining Lease – Section 19, MMDR Act – Consequences – Any mineral concession granted in contravention of the Act or Rules is void and of no effect – Lease granted contrary to Rule 22-D is statutorily void – Such void lease cannot be validated by subsequent statutory amendments or by invoking deemed extension provisions – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision in Muneer Enterprises v. Ramgad Minerals & Mining Ltd. [Paras 21–22].

Negative Equality – Article 14, Constitution of India – Petitioner relied on instances where similarly placed lessees were allegedly granted deemed extensions despite holding areas less than the prescribed minimum – Held: Article 14 does not envisage negative equality – Erroneous or illegal benefits conferred on others cannot form the basis for claiming similar relief – Illegality cannot be perpetuated on grounds of parity [Paras 24–26].

Effect of Subsequent Rules – 2016 Concession Rules – Contention that under the 2016 Rules the minimum area requirement stood reduced rejected – Lease granted prior to coming into force of 2016 Rules governed exclusively by Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 – Subsequent change in law cannot cure an illegality existing at the time of grant [Paras 28–30].

Transfer of Lease – Rights of Transferee – Petitioner being a transferee of the lease cannot assert a higher right than the original lessee – Transferee cannot question legality of the original grant when predecessor accepted the lease without demur – Doctrine of “no one can benefit from own wrong” held inapplicable [Paras 27, 29].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Impugned order rejecting deemed extension upheld – Mining lease held void for violation of Rule 22-D of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.

Income Tax – Reassessment – Second Reopening – Change of Opinion – Invalidity – Assessment for AY 2009–10 earlier reopened and completed under Sections 147/143(3) – Specific issue of interest-free loan received by assessee from closely held company examined – No addition made – Subsequent notice under Section 148 issued for same AY on same foundational facts – Held: Reopening based on mere change of opinion impermissible – Proceedings without jurisdiction [Paras 23–35].

Reassessment – Scope of Sections 147/148 – Abuse of Power – Once reassessment undertaken and concluded after conscious application of mind, Revenue cannot reopen assessment again for same transaction on different legal interpretation – Power of reassessment is an exception and cannot be exercised casually or repeatedly – Second reopening amounts to harassment and uncertainty in tax administration [Paras 31–33, 45].

Interest-Free Loan – Deemed Income – Sections 2(22)(e) and 2(24)(iv) – During first reassessment, AO examined interest-free loan under Section 2(22)(e) and dropped proposed addition – Subsequent attempt to tax notional interest as income under Section 2(24)(iv) based on same facts impermissible – Both provisions held to be “two sides of the same coin” – AO ought to have examined all possible legal consequences in first reassessment itself [Paras 34–35].

Failure to Disclose Material Facts – Extended Limitation – Section 149 – Revenue invoked extended limitation alleging failure to disclose fully and truly material facts – Held: Assessee disclosed primary facts including audited balance sheet, books of accounts and loan transactions – No obligation to disclose secondary facts or inferences – Invocation of extended period held baseless and contrary to law [Paras 36–41].

Primary vs Secondary Facts – Duty of Assessee – Assessee required only to disclose primary facts necessary for assessment – Drawing of inferences and legal conclusions is duty of Assessing Officer – Reopening cannot be justified on ground that AO failed to draw correct inference earlier [Paras 41–42].

Judicial Review – Maintainability of Writ Against Section 148 Notice – Despite availability of alternative remedy, High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 where proceedings are ex facie without jurisdiction, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights – Particularly justified where proceedings stayed for years and relate to stale assessment year [Paras 21–22, 43].

Constitutional Law – Arbitrary Reassessment – Violation of Fundamental Rights – Repeated reopening for same issue held violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of Constitution – Tax administration must adhere to certainty, fairness and rule of law [Paras 45–46].

Costs – Arbitrary Exercise of Power – Court deprecated conduct of Revenue in initiating second reassessment without jurisdiction – Token costs imposed to compensate petitioners and mark disapproval of arbitrary action [Para 47].

Decision – Writ petitions allowed – Notices dated 31.03.2016 under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings quashed – Costs of ₹1,00,000/- per case awarded to each petitioner – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 46–48].

Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act – Insurer’s Liability – Absence of Fitness Certificate – Accident occurred after expiry of fitness certificate of offending pickup vehicle – Insurance policy contained no condition regarding fitness certificate – Evidence of insurer’s witness admitted absence of such condition – Held: Mere absence or expiry of fitness certificate does not constitute breach of policy conditions under Section 149 MV Act so as to absolve insurer of liability – Insurer liable to satisfy award [Paras 14–17].

Insurance Policy – Breach of Conditions – Burden of Proof – Insurer failed to establish specific policy condition regarding fitness certificate – Reliance on judgments of other High Courts rejected in view of binding coordinate Bench decisions – Held: In absence of explicit policy condition, insurer cannot avoid liability [Paras 14–17].

Composite Negligence and Contributory Negligence – Head-on Collision – Tribunal held drivers of both vehicles negligent – In claim of driver of Innova car, contributory negligence assessed at 60% – High Court reappreciated evidence including spot map and oral evidence – Held: Contributory negligence of deceased driver Deepak reduced to 50% as no evidence showed greater negligence on his part [Paras 19–21].

Spot Map – Evidentiary Value – Spot map showing position of vehicles and point of impact relied upon along with other evidence – Distinguished from cases where negligence inferred solely from resting position of vehicles – Held: Spot map can be considered when it depicts actual point of accident and is supported by evidence [Paras 19–21].

Compensation – Assessment of Income – Minimum Wages – Where documentary proof of income not duly proved, minimum wages applicable – Deceased Deepak treated as skilled labour – Multiplier applied as per age – Compensation recalculated accordingly [Paras 22].

Loss of Consortium – Parents Entitled – Parents of deceased victims entitled to filial consortium – ₹40,000/- awarded to each parent in terms of settled law – Tribunal’s omission corrected [Paras 22, 24, 25, 28].

Income Tax Return – Evidentiary Value – Income tax return of deceased Akash filed prior to death accepted as reliable evidence of income – Tribunal erred in discarding return – Held: Income shown in pre-accident return to be taken for computation of compensation [Paras 23–24].

Bachelor Deceased – Deduction for Personal Expenses – In case of bachelor deceased Rajesh, 50% deduction for personal expenses appropriate – Further deduction on ground that mother also received compensation in another claim held impermissible – Tribunal misapplied Sarla Verma principle – Full dependency compensation allowed [Para 25].

Injured Claimants – Quantum of Compensation – Where no evidence of grievous injury or permanent disability produced, Tribunal’s award confined mainly to medical expenses upheld – No enhancement warranted for injured Santosh and Manish [Paras 26–27].

Students and Future Prospects – Notional Income – Deceased engineering student Hemant’s income assessed on basis of claimants’ own pleading – Treated as semi-skilled/skilled appropriately – Consortium awarded to parents – Compensation enhanced marginally [Para 28].

Interest on Enhanced Compensation – Enhanced compensation to carry interest @ 6% per annum from date of claim petition till realization – Insurer directed to pay entire amount [Para 29].

Decision – Appeals filed by insurance company dismissed – Claimants’ appeals partly allowed with enhancement in specified cases – Common award modified accordingly – Insurer held liable to satisfy enhanced awards [Para 30].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC – Appeal against life sentence – Victim sustained bullet injuries inside his house on the eve of Panchayat elections – Trial Court convicted appellants on the basis of eyewitness testimony and oral dying declaration – High Court reappreciated entire evidence – Held: Conviction justified and appeal dismissed [Paras 1–5, 79–80].

Evidence Act – Res Gestae – Sections 6 and 7 – Victim’s spontaneous utterance naming appellants immediately after being shot – Statements heard by wife (PW 14) and daughter-in-law (PW 15) – Such utterances formed part of the same transaction and surrounding circumstances – Admissible despite being hearsay in nature [Paras 41–44, 47–49].

Dying Declaration – Oral dying declaration – Section 32, Evidence Act – Victim naming appellants as assailants immediately after first bullet injury and repeatedly thereafter to family members, police personnel and companions en route to hospital – Victim conscious though in pain – Oral dying declaration held admissible and reliable – No requirement of written form or Magistrate recording for admissibility [Paras 49, 55–65].

Witness Testimony – Related witnesses – Wife and daughter-in-law as eyewitnesses – Natural presence at place of occurrence – No motive to falsely implicate appellants – Minor inconsistencies and subsequent allegations of police coercion not sufficient to discard substantive testimony before Court – Court entitled to separate truth from embellishment [Paras 56–57, 71–73].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Post-mortem findings of bullet injuries and secondary injuries consistent with collision after being shot – Medical opinion corroborated ocular testimony regarding manner of assault – Absence of X-ray and recovery of bullet not fatal to prosecution case [Paras 14–18, 67–68].

Investigation – Lapses and irregularities – Delay in recording statements under Section 164 CrPC – Non-production of written dying declaration allegedly recorded by police – Deficiencies in sketch map and forensic collection – Held: Serious lapses noted but cannot outweigh cogent and credible eyewitness and dying declaration evidence [Paras 66, 74–76].

Identification of Accused – Visibility and presence at scene – Argument of insufficient lighting rejected – Assailants firing through grill gate necessarily implies mutual visibility – Victim’s immediate recognition of appellants, known to him earlier, found natural and credible [Paras 50–53, 68–69].

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 CrPC – Failure of appellants to take plea of alibi – Denial of presence without explanation – Adverse inference drawn in light of prosecution evidence establishing presence at place of occurrence [Para 78].

Sentence – Fine and compensation – Life imprisonment and fines upheld – Modification directing distribution of fine amount equally between wife and daughter-in-law of deceased – Direction to State to pay compensation of ₹5 lakhs in default of payment of fine by appellants [Paras 80–85].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 IPC, Section 448 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act upheld – Directions regarding surrender, payment of fine and compensation affirmed with modification.