Civil Writ – Property Law - Urban Land Ceiling – Proceedings Abated – De Facto Possession Not Taken – State Failed to Prove Physical Possession - State failed to establish that actual possession was taken prior to repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling Act – No documentary proof of possession, panchnama, or memorandum of possession produced – Petitioners continued in possession and reflected in revenue records – Held: Proceedings stood abated and petitioners entitled to restoration of land [Paras 17-24]. 

Repeal Act – Section 3 and 4 – Mere Vesting Not Sufficient – Physical Possession Mandatory - Court reiterated that mere vesting under Section 10(3) without taking actual possession under Section 10(5) or 10(6) does not suffice – Onus on the State to prove possession prior to 18.03.1999 – Held: Petitioners entitled to protection under Section 4 of the Repeal Act [Paras 7-8, 21-24]. 
 
Possession – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Writ Jurisdiction Not Barred - Court held that the issue of de facto possession is a mixed question of law and fact and can be determined under Article 226 especially when sufficient documentary material is available – No bar on adjudication merely due to factual dispute [Paras 18-22]. 
 
Delay – Delay in Filing Writ – Explained – Does Not Defeat Claim - Although writ was filed after nearly two decades, Court accepted the explanation that threat of dispossession arose only recently – Delay not fatal when State fails to prove lawful dispossession [Paras 17, 21]. 
 
Decision – Writ Allowed – Proceedings Declared Abated – State Directed to Restore Possession and Record Mutation - State directed to update revenue records in favour of the petitioners within eight weeks – Petitioners’ possession protected [Paras 25-26]. 
 

Disqualification – Misconduct under Section 42(10) – Removal of Municipal Property Without Authority – Disqualification Upheld - Petitioner (President) directed removal of Municipal materials from pump-house without authority or Council’s approval – Pump-house was subsequently demolished – Held: Petitioner acted negligently and facilitated the loss of Municipal property – Misconduct proved – Disqualification under Section 42(10) valid [Paras 15-42].

Principles of Natural Justice – No Prejudice Demonstrated – Plea of Violation Rejected - Though petitioner alleged denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, no request was made for such opportunity and no prejudice shown – Held: Absence of cross-examination did not vitiate the proceedings in the peculiar facts of the case – Disqualification order valid [Paras 15-27].

Emergency Powers – Section 43(2) Not Invoked – Procedure Not Followed - Petitioner failed to demonstrate exercise of emergency powers properly – No report to Standing Committee as required under Section 43(2) – Action unilateral and without statutory backing – Conduct amounted to dereliction of duty [Paras 31-38].

Loss Recovery – Regional Commissioner Lacked Jurisdiction under Section 308 – Personal Liability Set Aside - Regional Commissioner lacked authority to fasten liability for loss under Section 308 – Only Deputy Commissioner is competent – Portion of order fixing personal liability set aside with liberty to proceed afresh as per law [Para 44].

Land Ownership Dispute – Observations on Title Not Binding – Limited to Disqualification Proceedings - Observations made by Regional Commissioner regarding title or ownership of disputed land held not binding or conclusive – Left open to be decided independently in competent proceedings [Para 45].

Decision – Writ Petition No. 4409/2023 Dismissed – Disqualification Confirmed – Writ Petition No. 15015/2023 Partly Allowed – Findings on Property Rights Clarified [Para 46].
 

UAPA Bail – Prima Facie Case – Appellant Found in Possession of Looted Prohibited Arms – Bail Denied - Appellant apprehended in camouflaged dress along with looted prohibited bore weapons during Manipur ethnic violence – Investigation reveals Appellant’s past criminal history, training, and active participation in PLA activities – Recovery linked to stolen statearmoury weapons – Court held prima facie case under Sections 18, 23, and 39 of UAPA established, barring bail under Section 43D(5) [Paras 48-57]. 
 
Distinct FIRs – NIA FIR and Manipur FIR – Jurisdiction of NIA Valid - Appellant's contention regarding double jeopardy and re-arrest after bail rejected – Held: FIRs distinct as NIA case involves larger transnational conspiracy, while Manipur FIR relates to incident-specific charges – NIA jurisdiction upheld as MHA notification remains effective despite High Court setting aside procedural transfer order [Paras 30-34]. 
 
Co-accused Not Arrested – Discretion of Investigating Agency – Not a Ground for Bail - Court held that NIA’s selective arrest policy based on security situation and individual roles cannot be faulted – Appellant’s leadership role and influence distinguished him from co-accused who were enlarged on bail – Co-accused status cannot be a ground for parity [Paras 35-
36]. 
 
Tripod Test – Risk of Influencing Witnesses and Disturbing Public Order – Bail Refused - Appellant found to have significant local influence; apprehension that his release may aggravate law and order – Court accepted prosecution’s sealed cover materials indicating threat to peace and investigation – Bail denied considering seriousness of allegations and potential threat [Paras 55-57]. 
 
Doctrine of Speedy Trial – Not Absolute – Gravity and Prima Facie Case Under UAPA Override - Although the Court recognized the right to speedy trial under Article 21, it held that in UAPA cases, gravity of offence and national security considerations weigh against enlargement on bail unless conditions under Section 43D(5) are clearly not met [Paras 47, 57]. 
 
Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Bail Rejected – NIA Directed to Proceed with Investigation Expeditiously [Paras 57-58]. 
 

Civil Writ - Rejection of application filed under Section 32 of the Bihar Consolidation Act - Consolidation Proceedings – Effect of Completion Without Formal Denotification – Collector Rightly Declined Jurisdiction - Court held that once the Draft Scheme under Section 13(1) is finalized and certificates are issued under Section 15, and the scheme is confirmed under Section 16, the consolidation proceedings are deemed complete for all practical purposes – Mere absence of Gazette Notification under Section 26A does not revive Collector’s power under Section 32 – Petition rightly dismissed [Paras 11-12].

Concurrent Civil Suit – Title Suit Pending – Proper Forum Available – Writ Not Maintainable - Since the petitioner had already filed Title Suit No. 802 of 2020 challenging the same gift deed and seeking its cancellation, Court held that consolidation authorities need not proceed in parallel – Civil Court is appropriate forum for adjudication [Paras 11-12].

Delay – Prolonged Delay without Satisfactory Explanation – Petition Filed After 5 Years of Gift Deed - Gift deed was executed in 2016, but petition under Section 32 filed only in 2021 – Plea of petitioner that knowledge arose later was disbelieved – Court noted suppression of fact that petitioner had already participated in earlier title suits related to the same gift [Paras 10-12].

Interpretation – Sections 5 and 32 Read with Full Bench Decision – Voidness of Transfers Post-Consolidation Cannot be Invoked Indefinitely - Following Full Bench in Panna Devi and other judgments, Court reiterated that transfers made post-confirmation of consolidation proceedings cannot be challenged merely due to lack of formal notification under Section 26A if the process is otherwise completed [Paras 8-11].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Collector’s Order Upheld – Petitioner Directed to Pursue Remedy Before Civil Court [Para 13].

Preventive Detention – Public Order vs Law and Order – Detention Quashed - The petitioner was detained under the J&K Public Safety Act based on prior FIRs and a 2024 petty offence – Court held the alleged acts did not disturb public order and were adequately addressable under regular criminal law – Detaining authority failed to justify why normal legal remedies were insufficient – Detention held to be illegal and quashed [Paras 13–15, 26].

Application of Mind – Copy-Paste from Police Dossier – Detention Invalid - Grounds of detention were a verbatim reproduction of police dossier without independent analysis – Court held this demonstrated non-application of mind by the detaining authority – Such mechanical exercise of power vitiates detention orders – Held: Detention order suffers from constitutional infirmity [Paras 12, 27].

Constitutional Safeguards – Violation of Article 22(5) – Right to Representation Denied - The petitioner was not provided with all relied-upon documents nor given proper opportunity to make representation – Breach of Article 22(5) and PSA procedural requirements established – Court emphasized need for cautious exercise of preventive detention powers in light of Article 21 rights [Paras 3, 15, 28].

Legal Threshold – Disturbance to Community Not Proven – Supreme Court Precedents Applied - Applying rulings in Ram Manohar Lohia, Arun Ghosh, Rekha, Ameena Begum, and others, the Court reiterated that mere criminal acts or FIRs do not justify preventive detention unless they disturb the life of the community – Detention must address “public order,” not routine law and order issues [Paras 16–25].

Decision – Detention Order Quashed – Petitioner Ordered to be Released - The Court found merit in the writ petition – Held: Detention order No. DMS/PSA/07/2024 dated 04.04.2024 is illegal – Ordered immediate release of petitioner from custody [Paras 26, 29].
 

Civil Writ - Challenge against eviction - Removal of encroachments over river - Land Assignment – Eligibility under Special Rules, 1993 – Requirement of Conversion Before 01.01.1977 Not Satisfied – Regularisation Denied - Petitioners sought regularisation of occupation under the Special Rules, 1993 but failed to prove conversion of land for noncardamom cultivation prior to 01.01.1977 – Held: Occupied lands were classified as river, road and rock puramboke with no record of eligible occupation, making the petitioners ineligible for regularisation [Paras 5-7, 11]. 
 
Encroachment – Obstruction to Free Flow of River – Public Safety and Disaster Management – Eviction Upheld - Constructions caused obstruction to Panniyar river's natural flow resulting in flooding risk – District Disaster Management Authority directed demolition of structures under Disaster Management Act – Held: Eviction proceedings lawful to ensure public safety and prevent environmental degradation [Paras 11-14]. 
 
Interim Orders – Effect of Dismissal of SLP – Subsequent Proceedings Unstalled – Petitioners Not 
Entitled to Parity - Petitioners relied on status quo order passed by Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.17060/2024 – Held: Since the SLP was dismissed on 28.01.2025, interim protection lapsed and petitioners cannot claim continued benefit based on the same [Paras 9-10]. 
 
Right to Rehabilitation – Not Absolute – Limited to Eligible Evictees – Relief Declined - 
Petitioners claimed entitlement to rehabilitation as ordered in previous writ petitions – Held: No documentary evidence of eligibility for rehabilitation produced, and encroachment being over river puramboke, no vested right for assignment or rehabilitation arises [Paras 11-12]. 
 
Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Eviction Process Found Valid – Petitioners Failed to Establish Entitlement for Regularisation or Rehabilitation [Paras 12-13]. 
 

Arbitration – Interim Award on Limitation – Premature Decision without Evidence – Found Contrary to Fundamental Policy - Arbitrator decided limitation issue as preliminary issue solely on demurrer relying only on claimant's pleadings – Arbitrator himself noted that with evidence the outcome might differ – Held: Decision violates judicial approach requirement under fundamental policy of Indian law – Interim award modified [Paras 19-25]. 
 
Section 34 Arbitration Act – Scope of Judicial Review – Limited but Permissible when Award Contravenes Fundamental Policy - Held: Court cannot review award on merits but can interfere when award is perverse or based on flawed procedure breaching judicial approach – Such breach occurred as limitation was decided without parties' evidence [Paras 13-19]. 
 
Estoppel – Consent to Procedure for Preliminary Issue – Respondents Not Estopped – Arbitrator Misread Proceedings - Held: Respondents’ initial willingness to argue limitation issue did not waive their right to lead evidence – Objection was raised at appropriate stage – Arbitrator wrongly foreclosed right to evidence [Paras 21-24]. 
 
Public Policy – Award Rendered in Violation of Fundamental Policy of Indian Law – Modification Upheld - Held: Arbitrator's approach was against principles of natural justice and judicial approach - Modified order by Single Judge justified - Appeal dismissed [Paras 24-26]. 
 
Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Arbitrator to Re-examine Limitation Issue Based on Evidence - Modification of interim award sustained – Arbitrator to decide limitation issue afresh based on evidence [Para 26]. 
 

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 498A, 302, and 201 IPC – Conviction set aside due to lack of direct evidence and incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence - The prosecution failed to establish any cogent and consistent link between the appellants and the crime – Star witness PW-15's testimony disbelieved due to delay, omissions, and improbabilities – Defence theory of suicide not ruled out – Held: Conviction cannot be sustained [Paras 56-93]. 
 
Section 498A IPC – Allegations of Cruelty – Vague and Omnibus Allegations Insufficient – Conviction unsustainable - No contemporaneous complaint, specific incidents, or details of cruelty alleged – Witnesses depose general dissatisfaction and quarrels without meeting the legal requirements of cruelty under Section 498A IPC – Trial Court wrongly convicted based on conjectures [Paras 55-58]. 
 
Section 106 Evidence Act – No Shift of Burden – Absence of Proof of Presence of Accused - Prosecution failed to prove that appellants were present at the scene at the time of occurrence – Application of Section 106 Evidence Act to infer guilt was misplaced – Mere relationship with deceased or proximity to the incident does not justify shifting burden to accused [Paras 59-61, 75-79, 82]. 
 
Testimony of PW-15 – Delayed Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Reliability Doubtful – Statement rejected - PW-15, a crucial prosecution witness, did not mention incriminating facts in the FIR or inquest report – Delay of over two weeks in recording Section 164 statement unexplained – No prior Section 161 statement recorded – Held: Statement is unreliable and likely an afterthought [Paras 62-71]. 
 
Post-Mortem Evidence – Conducted by Unqualified Person – Opinion Lacking Forensic Value - Post-mortem done under supervision of a doctor without forensic expertise and performed by a Dom untrained for dissection – Report lacked essential details like burn percentage, type of asphyxia, or time of death – Held: Medical evidence unfit for reliance [Paras 83-87]. 
 
Circumstantial Evidence – Failure to Complete Chain – Possibility of Suicide Plausible – Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Absence of credible motive, no clear eyewitnesses to the crime, serious lacunae in investigation and medical evidence – Defence theory of suicide or self-inflicted death held probable – Conviction set aside [Paras 84-90]. 
 
Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and Sentences Under Sections 498A, 302, 201 IPC Set Aside – Appellants Acquitted - Held: Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – Appellants released [Paras 90-93]. 
 

Civil Law - Mutation Proceedings Challenged – Based on Time-Barred Decree – Limitation Applies – Orders Quashed - Petitioners challenged mutation granted to respondent No.4 based on a 1995 final decree—Held: Mutation application filed in 2013–2014 was hopelessly barred under Article 136 of Limitation Act—Revenue authorities erred in recognizing a decree long unenforced and beyond prescribed time limits [Paras 6–13, 16].

Section 4 ROR Act – Application for Mutation Must Be Filed Within 90 Days – Mandatory Compliance Required - As per ROR Act, any person acquiring rights via court decree must apply within 90 days—Respondent No.4 failed to comply; thus mutation based on decree is invalid—Court emphasized statutory deadline cannot be relaxed casually [Paras 6, 9–10, 16].

Engrossment of Decree – Does Not Postpone Limitation – Supreme Court Precedent Applied - Citing Chiranji Lal v. Hari Das, Court held that delay in providing stamp paper or engrossment does not delay limitation—Execution period begins from decree date itself [Para 12].

Section 58B of Telangana Land Revenue Act – Not Applicable – Misapplication of Provision - Respondent authorities relied on Section 58B to validate decree—Court held it applies only to occupancy rights, not to decrees in partition suits—Erroneous legal basis rejected [Para 16].

Delay and Laches – Undue Delay Defeats Equity – Mutation Denied - Respondent No.4’s inaction for over 18 years deemed fatal—Court reiterated that law aids the vigilant and not the indolent—Principle of vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt applied [Paras 13–15].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Mutation Orders Dated 07.03.2015 and 04.11.2019 Set Aside – Revenue Records to Be Rectified – Passbooks to Be Issued to Petitioners in Accordance With Law [Para 17].