Land Acquisition – Due Process – Sections 3A, 3D & 3G(3) of National Highways Act – Gazette Notification issued in 2022 under Section 3A did not include all petitioners’ properties – Declaration under Section 3D dated 03.07.2024 and subsequent compensation proceedings initiated – Petitioners allege interference with possession without due acquisition – Held: Respondents directed to follow due process before acquisition – Acquisition without compliance violates Article 300-A [Paras 2–2.2, 9]

Constitutional Law – Article 300-A – Right to Property – Seven essential rights recognised by Supreme Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah (2024) 10 SCC 533 form core of Article 300-A – Includes rights to notice, hearing, reasoned decision, fair compensation, expeditious process, public purpose and conclusion – Held: Absence of these renders law vulnerable to challenge – These principles now part of administrative law jurisprudence [Paras 5–7]

Property Law – Completion of Acquisition – Mere compensation not sufficient – Possession of property is essential for valid acquisition – Court reiterates that unless physical possession is taken, acquisition remains incomplete [Para 8]

Decision: Writ Petitions disposed of with direction to follow due process of law – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous petitions closed.

Service Law – Notional Promotion – Delay in Issuance of Promotion Order – Grant of NFU – High Court sets aside Tribunal Order directing notional promotion with retrospective effect – Respondent promoted to the post of Deputy Director General only on 21.07.2016 despite DPC held on 22.01.2016 and vacancy arising on 01.04.2016 – Tribunal held delay unjustified and allowed notional promotion from 01.04.2016 – High Court disagrees – Held: Promotion becomes effective only upon assumption of duties, not from date of vacancy or DPC recommendation – No mala fide or arbitrariness found in administrative delay – Mere pendency of vacancy and DPC recommendation does not confer enforceable right to promotion from earlier date – Tribunal’s direction unsustainable [Paras 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 26-29, 39-41].

Administrative Delay – Priority to Earlier DPC Panel – Valid Justification – Officers recommended by Supplementary DPC for year 2015-16 were accorded priority – Delay in issuing promotion orders to 2016-17 panel including respondent was due to administrative practice – High Court holds such prioritization is not mala fide or unreasonable – No evidence produced to show that delay was intentional or designed to deprive respondent of NFU – Petitioners’ action not arbitrary [Paras 4, 14-15, 25, 30, 34, 37].

Promotion – Right to Be Considered vs. Right to Promotion – DPC Recommendation – No Vested Right – High Court reiterates settled law that promotion does not automatically follow recommendation by DPC – It becomes effective only from date of actual appointment and assumption of charge – Respondent retired before completing requisite one year in promotional post to qualify for NFU – Therefore, claim of retrospective notional promotion and NFU unsustainable [Paras 13, 29, 39].

Distinction from Earlier Precedents – Krishna Kumar Sinha & Others – Inapplicable – Bombay High Court case distinguished on facts – In that case, competent authority failed to process promotions despite available vacancies and DPC recommendations – Present case involved administrative sequencing based on policy – Hence, benefit of retrospective promotion not attracted – Parity cannot be claimed mechanically without establishing factual similarity [Paras 19-20, 30-32].

State’s Conduct – No Mala Fide Established – Delay Not Attributable to Ill-Will – High Court finds no evidence to suggest the delay in promotion was due to bias, negligence or mala fide action – Mere delay per se without adverse motive does not justify retrospective promotion – Principle that State cannot take advantage of its own wrong applies only where delay is culpable – Not applicable here [Paras 18, 25, 36, 38].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Tribunal’s Order dated 29.05.2024 quashed – No entitlement to notional promotion from 01.04.2016 – No financial or NFU benefits payable – Respondent’s claim rejected – No costs awarded [Paras 41-43].

Hindu Marriage – Void Marriage – Second Marriage during subsistence of first – Conversion and Re-conversion – Compromise and Quashing of FIR – Woman, originally Muslim, married Hindu petitioner by Hindu rites while first marriage subsisted – Later divorce decree obtained – Held: Marriage void ab initio under Section 11 HMA as contravening Section 5(i); absence of common religion and existence of prior spouse invalidate the marriage – Compromise deed and quashing of FIR upheld – Recall application rejected; subsequent Family Court judgment cannot revive extinguished proceedings [Paras 11–19].

Marriage – Validity – Conversion – Hindu Marriage Act – Petitioner (Hindu) married respondent (formerly Muslim, converted to Islam, later allegedly reconverted to Hinduism) through Hindu rites on 28.06.2020 while her divorce from first husband (Dr. Zafar Sayeed) was pending – Decree of divorce granted only on 19.01.2021 – Held: Under Section 5(i) read with Section 11, Hindu Marriage Act, a valid Hindu marriage requires that both parties be Hindus and neither have a living spouse – Marriage solemnized in contravention is void ipso jure, i.e., non-existent in law from inception [Paras 11–13].

Void Marriage – Legal Effect – A void marriage confers no marital status or mutual rights and obligations – It is to be ignored as non-existent; declaration of nullity is not mandatory but advisable for record and legal clarity – Reliance placed on Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC 530; M.M. Malhotra v. Union of India, (2005) 8 SCC 351 [Paras 13–14].

Recall of Order – Compromise Decree – Subsequent Developments – Compromise deed dated 17.02.2024 verified and recorded; FIR under Sections 392, 354, 506 IPC quashed by order dated 09.01.2025 – Subsequent dismissal of petitioner’s Section 11 HMA petition by Family Court (06.05.2025) does not justify recall of High Court order – Judicial pronouncement by competent court is an independent event and cannot undo a compromise-based quashing order [Paras 6–9, 17–18].

Declaration of Marital Status – Judicial Responsibility – Determination of marital status affects the social and legal identity of parties; such declaration can only be made by a competent court in proper proceedings under Section 11 HMA – Courts must ensure full and effective adjudication of marital status [Para 15].

Scope under Article 226 – High Court, while hearing criminal writs, cannot adjudicate disputed factual issues relating to personal law status – Appropriate remedies lie before matrimonial courts [Para 12, 16].

Decision: Application for Recall dated 27.05.2025 dismissed – No ground to interfere with earlier order dated 09.01.2025 quashing FIR based on compromise – Parties at liberty to pursue remedies against Family Court order dated 06.05.2025 [Paras 17–19].

SARFAESI Act – Availability of Statutory Remedy – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Borrower filed writ petition seeking installment facility and return of possession of mortgaged property – Learned Single Judge permitted repayment in installments and ordered return of possession upon part payment – Held: Writ petition not maintainable as borrower had not challenged possession notice under Section 13(4) or moved the DRT under Section 17 – When possession had already been taken, High Court should not have entertained writ petition – Remedy lies before Debts Recovery Tribunal [Paras 1, 12, 15–17]

SARFAESI Act – Direction to Return Possession of Secured Asset – Legality – Learned Single Judge directed Bank to return possession of secured asset upon partial payment of ₹4,00,000/- despite overdue amount being ₹18,06,135/- – Held: Such direction was contrary to statutory scheme under SARFAESI Act – Bank had legally taken possession before writ petition was filed – Order was unsustainable and without jurisdiction [Paras 8–10, 15–17]

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope of Article 226 in Financial and Recovery Matters – Supreme Court in Naveen Mathew Philip (2023) reiterated settled position that High Courts should not entertain petitions under Article 226 in SARFAESI disputes when alternative remedy under Section 17 is available – Writ jurisdiction not to be used to bypass statutory mechanism or to grant equitable indulgence in financial recovery proceedings [Paras 13–14]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 31.07.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 21496 of 2025 set aside – Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable – Petitioner at liberty to seek appropriate remedy before Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Land Acquisition – Section 28-A – Beneficial Construction – Redetermination Allowed – Landowners who had not sought reference under Section 18 filed applications under Section 28-A within three months of award dated 30.01.2016 granting higher compensation – Held: Applications within limitation; SLAO order dated 17.02.2022 enhancing compensation @ ₹108/sq. mtr. with solatium and interest upheld – KUMS’ objections dismissed [Paras 7.1–7.6, 8(c)-(d)].

Limitation – Computation – Section 28-A – Commences From Specific Award Relied On – Contention that limitation ran from 1990 award unsustainable since that award was set aside; limitation runs from 2016 award relied upon by landowners – Applications filed on 26.04.2016 well within limitation [Paras 7.4–7.6, 8(b)-(c)].

Per Incuriam Precedent – Ramsingbhai vs. Pradeep Kumari – Banwari Clarified Law – Held: Earlier three-Judge Bench in Pradeep Kumari binding; Ramsingbhai per incuriam – Section 28-A to be construed liberally as beneficial legislation [Paras 7.11–7.12].

Hansoli Devi Case – Ineffective Reference – Acceptance of Compensation – Does Not Bar Relief – Even where references under Section 18 were dismissed as time-barred, right under Section 28-A subsists; acceptance of compensation with or without protest does not negate entitlement [Paras 7.13–7.16].

Equal Treatment – Compensation to Similarly Situated Landowners – Mandate of Section 28-A – Doctrine of distributive justice requires equal compensation for lands acquired under same notification – Financial burden on acquiring body no ground to deny statutory right [Paras 7.17–7.22].

Decision – Leading Petition Allowed – Connected KUMS Petitions Dismissed – KUMS directed to comply with SLAO order dated 17.02.2022 and deposit enhanced compensation with benefits within six weeks; failure to comply will attract 12% interest from date of default; landowners entitled to solatium, additional compensation, and statutory interest [Paras 8–9].

Land Acquisition – Redetermination of Compensation – Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Beneficial Construction – Limitation – Award of Enhanced Compensation – Maintainability – Applicability of Banwari v. HSIIDC, 2025 AIR (SC) 165 – Section 28-A is a beneficent provision intended to remove inequality among landowners whose lands were acquired under the same notification – Limitation of three months under Section 28-A begins from the date of the award relied upon and not from any earlier award subsequently set aside – Applications filed within three months from Reference Court’s award dated 30.01.2016 held within limitation – Order of SLAO dated 17.02.2022 granting redetermination at Rs.108/- per sq. mtr. with statutory benefits upheld – KUMS’ plea of limitation and non-maintainability rejected – Reliance placed on Banwari (supra), Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, and Hansoli Devi – Beneficial interpretation applied [Paras 7.1–7.22, 8(a)–(e)].

Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation – Section 28-A – Purpose and Object – Equality in Compensation – Landowners under same notification entitled to equal treatment – Provision to be construed liberally to extend benefit to inarticulate and poor landowners – Earlier contrary ruling in Ramsingbhai v. State of Gujarat held per incuriam – Pradeep Kumari followed as binding precedent [Paras 7.11–7.13, 7.19–7.22].

Limitation – Commencement – Date of Award Relied Upon – Not from Earlier Set Aside Award – KUMS’ contention that time ran from 1990 award untenable as that award was quashed in appeal – Cause of action arose only upon Reference Court’s 2016 award upheld finally by Supreme Court – Applications filed on 26.04.2016 within limitation [Paras 7.4–7.6].

Interest and Statutory Benefits – Re-determined Compensation – Collector empowered to grant solatium, additional amount, and interest as per Act – No illegality in award of such benefits – Financial burden on public body no ground to deny statutory compensation [Paras 7.9–7.10, 7.18].

Equitable Compensation – Equal Treatment to Similarly Situated Landowners – Constitutional and Statutory Duty of State – Section 28-A to be read in light of Article 31 and principle of distributive justice – Denial of benefit on technical grounds amounts to discrimination [Paras 7.17–7.22].

Decision – Leading Writ Petition Allowed – Connected Petitions by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Dismissed – SLAO’s Order dated 17.02.2022 Upheld – KUMS directed to deposit enhanced compensation at Rs.108/- per sq. mtr. with solatium, additional compensation, and interest within six weeks – In default, interest at 12% per annum from date of default till payment [Paras 9(i)–(v), 11].

Criminal Law – Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Quashing of FIR – FIR registered by police under Section 13 of the D&C Act pursuant to Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Held: Only authorities specified under Section 32 of D&C Act (Drug Inspector etc.) can initiate prosecution – Police has no jurisdiction to register FIR – FIR under D&C Act quashed as without authority [Paras 40-44, 88]

Criminal Law – IPC Offences – Sections 274 and 275 IPC – Held: Though FIR under IPC is maintainable, ingredients of offences not made out – Allegation of adulteration not supported by material – Joint inspection found product of standard quality at time of dispatch – Adulteration, if any, occurred after delivery to complainant – FIR under IPC also quashed [Paras 45-60, 66-85, 89]

Criminal Procedure – Limitation – FIR registered in 2019 for offences punishable with up to six months – No charge sheet filed within one year – No justification for delay – Bar under Section 468 Cr.P.C. applicable – Investigation continuation amounts to abuse of process – FIR quashed on this ground as well [Paras 86-87, 89]

Drugs Law – Loan Licencee – Manufacturing Responsibility – Petitioner only provided manufacturing facility under Loan Licence to Respondent No. 2 – Held: As per Rules 75A, 69A of D&C Rules and judicial precedents, Loan Licencee (Respondent No. 2) is deemed manufacturer and responsible for drug quality – Petitioners not liable under D&C Act [Paras 64-70]

Commercial Dispute – Civil Nature Given Criminal Colour – Allegations arose from failure of Respondent No. 2 to sell drugs in market – Parties had arbitration agreement – Nil award given holding likely tampering by Respondent – Held: Dispute purely civil/commercial – Criminal proceedings abuse of process [Paras 20-21, 82-84]

Decision:

FIR No. 053/2019 under Sections 274/275 IPC and Section 13 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, registered at PS Okhla Industrial Area, quashed – Observations confined to FIR proceedings only – Petition allowed [Paras 90-91]

Family Law - Maintenance – Award of ₹21,000 to Wife/Mother – Challenge under Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS – Petitioners (husband and sons of respondent) contended that respondent left matrimonial home voluntarily in 2015 and filed maintenance petition only in 2019 – Petitioners alleged their own lack of income and claimed respondent had sufficient means and was living independently – Family Court awarded ₹21,000/month as maintenance – Held: Order proper and requires no interference – Petitioners failed to show any illegality, impropriety, or abuse of process [Paras 2–6, 9–11].

Social and Legal Duty – Husband and Sons – Court reaffirmed legal and moral duty of husband and sons to maintain wife/mother – Emphasised the vital social role of mothers and moral obligation of children to ensure their dignity in old age – Financial capacity of petitioners not a valid excuse when basic maintenance is concerned [Paras 7–8].

Quantum of Maintenance – Reasonableness – Court held ₹21,000 not excessive or disproportionate given rising living costs – Observed that Section 125 CrPC is a beneficial provision enacted to prevent vagrancy and provide support to dependent wife/mother – No error in Family Court’s determination of amount [Para 9].

Delay in Filing – Not Bar to Maintenance – Delay of four years in filing maintenance petition does not disentitle respondent when entitlement under law is otherwise established – Petitioners failed to establish that respondent was living separately without just cause [Paras 4–5].

No Grounds for Revision – Court found no error, perversity or abuse of process in impugned order – Family Court rightly exercised jurisdiction and applied settled principles – Criminal revision petition dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 9–12].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Family Court order upheld – Maintenance of ₹21,000/month to continue – No interference warranted – Miscellaneous petition also dismissed.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Sale of Waqf Property – Petitioner, as Manager of Mazar-e-Najmi Waqf, executed sale deed of Waqf property allegedly based on forged permission letter – Later cancelled transaction and returned consideration – FIR registered under IPC and PC Act – Petitioner sought quashing citing absence of dishonest intent and lack of locus in complainant – Held: Mere cancellation of sale deed and refund of money does not absolve the act of alleged forgery and criminal misconduct [Paras 1-3, 16].

Waqf Act – Section 52A – Locus of Complainant – Bar under Section 52A(3) applies only to offences under Section 52A – Where FIR involves IPC and PC Act offences, bar does not apply – Police entitled to investigate cognizable offences independent of complaint by Waqf Board – Complainant’s locus upheld [Paras 13-15].

Forgery – Consent Letter – Handwriting Dispute – Allegation that consent letter of Waqf Board used for sale was forged – Waqf Board Administrator denied issuance and authorship – Handwriting samples collected and expert report awaited – Prima facie material for investigation – Petition for quashing rejected [Paras 16, 20].

Scope of Section 528 BNSS (Earlier Section 482 CrPC) – Court reiterates settled law on limited and sparing use of inherent powers – No detailed evaluation of defence at FIR stage – If FIR discloses prima facie offence, continuation of investigation justified – Court not to assess truthfulness of defence plea at pre-trial stage [Paras 17-20].

Public Servant – Misuse of Official Position – As Manager/Mutawalli under Waqf Act, petitioner is public servant under Section 101(2) – Allegation of dishonest misappropriation of property attracts Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of PC Act – Prima facie case disclosed [Paras 11, 13].

Decision: Petition dismissed – FIR not liable to be quashed – Allegations in FIR disclose prima facie offences under IPC and PC Act – Locus of complainant valid – Petitioner free to raise all defences at trial stage – Observations not to affect framing of charge.