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].

Civil Procedure – Section 96 CPC – Registered Relinquishment Deed – Unilateral Cancellation Invalid – Appellant relied on unregistered “Deed of Cancellation” of 2010 relinquishment – Held: Such cancellation has no legal effect under Registration Act, 1908; remedy lies in separate cancellation suit, which is now time-barred – Exclusive ownership of Shop No.1/12 with respondent upheld [Paras 18-21, 25].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Pleading Requirement – General Allegations Insufficient – Plea of fraud in execution of relinquishment deed rejected – Court reiterated that fraud must be pleaded with full particulars under Order VI Rule 4 CPC; vague averments cannot invalidate a registered deed [Paras 20-22].

Benami Transactions – Section 2(9)(A)(b)(ii) and Section 4, Benami Act – Fiduciary Capacity Exception – Not Attracted – Claim that Shop No.1/13 was purchased benami by father in name of respondent – No evidence of fiduciary relationship or trust obligation – Exception under Section 2(9)(A)(b)(ii) inapplicable – Suit barred under Section 4 [Paras 26-31].

Partition – Preliminary Decree – Mangolpuri Property – Trial Court rightly declared 1/6th share each to six siblings in S-350, Mangolpuri – Local Commissioner appointed for metes-and-bounds partition – Status quo directed to continue pending final decree [Para 13, 32].

Joint Family Property – Proof of Common Funds – Sikandarabad Property – Appellant failed to produce documentary proof of purchase from joint family resources – Treated as self-acquired property of respondent [Para 32].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Single Judge affirmed holding respondent as exclusive owner of Shop No.1/12, rejecting benami claim to Shop No.1/13, and confirming preliminary decree for partition of Mangolpuri property – No interference warranted [Para 34].

Service Law – Probation – Deemed Confirmation – Petitioner appointed on compassionate grounds on 15.10.2001 – Probation extendable up to three years – No order of discharge passed – Held: Petitioner deemed confirmed on 15.10.2004 in terms of Rule 11 of PUNSUP service byelaws and judgment in State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh – Inaction by employer cannot prejudice petitioner’s right to confirmation [Paras 1, 2, 6, 7] –

Service Law – Annual Increments – Withholding on basis of FIR – Petitioner denied increments due to pendency of FIR registered in 2017 – No charge sheet served till date – Held: Registration of FIR is not a ground to withhold earned increments – Increment is a vested right for past performance and cannot be withheld arbitrarily without concluded disciplinary proceedings – Minor punishment of withholding increment without cumulative effect does not bar further benefits – Reliance on KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani [2023 INSC 352] and Dharam Singh case – Impugned order quashed [Paras 3-5, 8-9] –

Promotion and ACP Scheme – Petitioner eligible under adopted ACP policy of 4-9-14 years – Denial based on pending FIR – Held: Promotion and ACP cannot be denied in absence of concluded departmental proceedings – Respondents directed to consider claim in accordance with law [Paras 2, 10] –

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 13.06.2024 set aside – Petitioner deemed confirmed from 15.10.2004 – Entitled to annual increments from date of clearing type test – Claim under ACP scheme and for promotion to be considered within 3 months [Para 10].

Criminal Revision – Further Investigation – BNSS Ss. 438 & 442 – Petition Allowed – Petitioner, also victim of ₹50,000 job fraud, challenged Magistrate’s refusal to order further investigation despite final report (FRT) filed – Held: Magistrate retains discretion under S.173(8) CrPC to direct further probe at any stage before trial; impugned order set aside for fresh hearing [Paras 1–7].

Investigation – Lacunae and Defects – Court found serious lapses: failure to trace prime accused, inadequate inquiry into bank accounts and transactions involving multiple victims – Noted that I.O.’s conclusion of “no negligence” contradicted record; such defective investigation warrants judicial intervention for justice [Paras 2–6].

Principle of Law – Further Investigation vs. Re-investigation – Distinguished by Supreme Court: further investigation permissible even after cognizance; re-investigation requires higher scrutiny – Court reiterated that additional evidence can be gathered through supplementary report under S.173(8) CrPC to unearth truth [Paras 4–5].

Decision – Revisional application allowed – Magistrate’s order dated 30.07.2025 set aside – Matter remanded for fresh consideration of plea for further investigation, with direction to hear both parties and pass reasoned order uninfluenced by earlier observations [Para 7].

Excise Law – Suspension of Licence – Disproportionate Penalty – Petitioner’s licences under various excise categories suspended w.e.f. 16.3.2024 based on alleged seizure of truck-load of liquor without proper documentation – High Court finds contradictions between Inspection Report and FIR regarding whether liquor was bottled at petitioner’s plant – Court observes that penalties were highly disproportionate and offences were compoundable – Suspension cannot be indefinite or tantamount to cancellation – Held: Orders of suspension and rejection of representation quashed; authorities directed to determine compounding fee and decide renewal application [Paras 4–6, 15–16, 23–29, 30, 37–39]

Contradictory Findings – Inspection Report vs FIR – Inspection Report claimed seized liquor appeared bottled at petitioner’s plant – FIR alleged liquor was not bottled at the plant – Court held this contradiction undermines credibility of State’s action – Additionally, allegations regarding missing truck and its recovery with reduced stock absent from Inspection Report but added in FIR, indicating afterthought – Held: FIR appears to have been registered post-facto to cover deficiencies in original inspection [Paras 22–25, 33]

Admission of Guilt – No Admission on Critical Issues – State argued petitioner admitted to offences – Court clarified that responsibility was only taken for minor stock discrepancies, not for alleged illegal liquor – No admission regarding truck-load seizure or Krishan Kumar’s role – Mischaracterization of replies by Financial Commissioner – Held: Impugned orders incorrectly based on supposed admissions not supported by record [Paras 17, 32–33]

Employment Status – Custody of Seized Liquor Given to Unauthorised Person – Seized truck allegedly handed over to Krishan Kumar, who was not named in official employee list and was claimed to be a construction contractor – Court held that even if Krishan Kumar was a supervisor, handing over seized liquor back to same person from whom it was recovered defies logic and legal procedure – Held: Serious procedural lapse undermines validity of entire action [Paras 21–24, 26–27]

Licensing – Renewal of Licence – State contended licence deemed cancelled for non-renewal – Court held that renewal had been delayed in earlier years without adverse consequences – Further, suspension of licence prevented petitioner from applying for renewal – Held: Petitioner could not be faulted for not renewing licence while suspension order was in effect [Paras 34–36, 38]

Excise Regulation – Permissible Wastage – Punjab Distillery Rules permit set-off of excess and deficient wastage across months within defined limits – Court held minor variation in physical stock of spirit and liquor was within acceptable norms and could not justify harsh penalty of suspension [Paras 28–30]

Right to Trade in Intoxicants – Fundamental Right – Court clarified that while no fundamental right exists to trade in intoxicants per se, once licence is granted, licensee acquires a protected right to carry on business subject to law – State cannot act arbitrarily or deny recourse to legal remedies [Para 31]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Orders dated 15.6.2024 and 9.12.2024 suspending licences quashed – Commissioner (State Taxes and Excise) directed to determine appropriate compounding fee within 15 days and decide application for licence renewal accordingly.

Bail – BNSS Ss. 480 & 483 – Grant of Bail with Stringent Conditions – Petition Allowed – Accused allegedly conspired with co-accused to steal phones, debit card, confine complainant, attempt strangulation, and extort money; already faced multiple arrests in connected crimes in 2024–25 – Held: Considering detention of 67 days, completion of major investigation, examination of 14 witnesses, and fixed residence, bail granted with strict conditions to prevent absconding or witness intimidation [Paras 8–11].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Principles – Court noted that bail cannot be denied as punishment at pre-trial stage; while gravity of offences considered, the period of custody and progress of investigation weighed in favour of bail – Previous dismissal of pre-arrest bail not a bar once investigation substantially complete [Paras 8–10].

IPC & IT Act Offences – Allegations involved conspiracy to administer sedatives, extortion using stolen digital devices and bank cards, and attempt to murder complainant by strangulation; however, custody beyond 67 days not justified when prosecution already examined key witnesses – Custodial interrogation no longer necessary [Paras 2, 8–9].

Bail Conditions – Accused directed to execute bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties; weekly appearance at PS; not to leave Andhra Pradesh without permission; surrender passport; refrain from threats or inducements to witnesses; cooperate with investigation; not to indulge in any future offence – Conditions aimed to balance liberty of accused with integrity of investigation [Para 10].

Decision – Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner/Accused No.2 enlarged on bail with conditions as specified; non-compliance to entail cancellation of bail [Para 11].

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]

Motor Accident Claim – Assessment of Income – Evidence of Mining and Agricultural Activities – Compensation Enhanced – Tribunal treated deceased as unskilled labour earning ₹4,914 per month – High Court held that evidence of statutory mining consents, crane registration, EMI payments of ₹35,170 per month, and agricultural land indicated much higher income – Monthly income assessed at ₹45,000 – Compensation recalculated accordingly [Paras 9-13, 18].

Motor Accident Compensation – Loan Repayment as Proof of Earning Capacity – Reliance on Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778 – Regular repayment of heavy EMI reflects higher earning capacity; minimum wage cannot be the sole yardstick where positive evidence exists – Applied to present case [Paras 12-13].

Agricultural Income – Agriculturist not to be Treated as Unskilled Labour – Judicial recognition that agriculture requires skill, knowledge, and scientific input – Hence, deceased’s agricultural income also considered in computing monthly earnings [Paras 14-17].

Consortium – Award under Conventional Head – As per Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance, consortium includes spousal, parental, and filial – High Court awarded ₹40,000 each to all dependents (widow, four children, and mother) [Paras 19-20].

Final Computation – Income assessed at ₹45,000 per month; after applying multiplier of 13 and deductions, loss of income ₹65,81,328 – Consortium ₹2,40,000 – Funeral ₹15,000 – Loss of estate ₹15,000 – Total compensation ₹68,51,328 – Enhanced by ₹60,62,636 over Tribunal’s award – Interest @6% p.a. from date of claim petition, rising to 7.5% if delayed beyond two months [Paras 21-22].

Decision:

Appeal partly allowed—Impugned award modified—Compensation enhanced from ₹7,88,692 to ₹68,51,328 with interest—Insurance Company directed to deposit enhanced amount within two months, failing which higher interest rate applies.