Land Acquisition – Assessment of Market Value – Challenge to market value assessment for different parcels of land in the same village acquired at different times – Previous Supreme Court assessments not automatically applicable – Market value to be determined based on the date of the Section 4 notification and contemporaneous sale exemplars – Comparable sale deeds of the contemporaneous period provide a more accurate basis for market value than previous judicial assessments [Para 9.14].

Comparable Sale Deeds – Best Evidence – Court required to evaluate various factors impacting market value – Comparable sale deeds from the contemporaneous period considered the best evidence – Reliance on previous judicial assessments without considering available sale deeds not preferred – Courts to adopt a holistic approach for fair market value assessment [Paras 9.15-9.16].

Procedure under Land Acquisition Act – Assessment must consider severance damages for landowners whose remaining land is split – Additional compensation for smaller parcels of unacquired land – Uniform assessment of narrow strips for road construction not appropriate – Emphasis on accurate market value assessment based on contemporaneous evidence [Paras 8.8, 8.15].

Decision: Appeals disposed of with directions for reassessment of market value based on contemporaneous sale exemplars and proper consideration of severance damages.

Constitutional Law – Habeas Corpus – Child Custody – Petition under Article 226 for habeas corpus seeking custody of minor child – Petition resisted due to the petitioner’s treatment for personality disorder and availability of alternative remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act – Court held that while habeas corpus is maintainable for child custody, the detailed inquiry required is more suitable for the Family Court – Petition dismissed, liberty given to approach Family Court [Paras 1-10].

Mental Health and Child Welfare – Petitioner undergoing treatment for personality disorder – Allegations of misbehavior towards the child – Welfare of the child being paramount, Court found it inappropriate to hand over custody without detailed inquiry – Directed petitioner to seek remedy before the Family Court, considering mental health and overall circumstances [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Petition for habeas corpus dismissed with liberty to approach Family Court for child custody – Court directed Family Court to decide the matter uninfluenced by observations made in this petition [Para 10].

Criminal Procedure – Regular Bail – NDPS Act – Non-compliance with Section 42 – Petitioner, arrested for possession of 1 kg of heroin and a pistol, sought bail citing non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act – Court noted failure to document and communicate secret information as required – Bail granted, recognizing potential document fabrication and extended custody [Paras 1-14].

Evidence – Integrity of Prosecution – Fabrication of Documents – Recovery memo and FIR details indicated possible fabrication – Court cited prior judgments questioning the integrity of prosecution when document fabrication is evident – Petitioner had strong arguable points on merits [Paras 4, 10-12].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Petitioner granted regular bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court – Conditions imposed to ensure compliance with bail terms and non-interference with trial [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Multiple FIRs – Modification of Bail Conditions – Petitioners, on anticipatory bail in seven FIRs, were ordered by the Trial Court to furnish two sureties each for every FIR – High Court held this requirement highly onerous – Directed that two sureties each for all seven FIRs would suffice – Relied on Supreme Court precedent in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky's case, where similar relief was granted [Paras 1-14].

Bail Conditions – Practicality and Family Considerations – Petitioners from the same family involved in seven cases – High Court acknowledged practical difficulties in furnishing a large number of sureties – Provided relief considering the family’s onstraints and adherence to bail conditions [Paras 2, 3, 6, 12, 14].

Decision – Petition Disposed Of – High Court directed Trial Court to release petitioners on bail upon execution of one personal bond each and two sureties for each petitioner covering all seven FIRs – Total eight sureties required for all FIRs – Bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court [Paras 14-15].

Juvenile Justice – Bail – Juvenile not named in FIR – Co-accused’s disclosure – Impugned orders rejecting bail lacked reference to social background report – Bail allowed – Held, both impugned orders failed to reference or consider the social background report – Courts below based rejection on surmises and conjectures without fulfilling the statutory exceptions under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act – Petitioner granted bail [Paras 1-11].

Criminal Procedure – Juvenile in Custody – Petitioner's bail application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act overlooked by Courts – No overt act attributed to petitioner – Named solely in co-accused’s disclosure statement – Petitioner in custody for over 1 year 7 months – No other involvement in crimes – Bail granted subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds [Paras 6-13].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition Allowed – Impugned orders set aside – Petitioner directed to be released on bail with surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court – Observations not to influence trial on merits [Para 12].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Reinvestigation – Magistrate’s Authority – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No. 135 dated 13.08.2011 – FIR quashed as Magistrate could not reject cancellation report repeatedly on the same grounds and order reinvestigation – Emphasized that if Magistrate disagreed with the closure report, he should take cognizance under Section 190(1)(c) Cr.P.C. rather than ordering repeated reinvestigations [Paras 5-10].

Passport Act – Special Legislation – Offences related to Passport – Second passport obtained without disclosing first – Offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 IPC deemed illegal as Passports Act, a special legislation, provides specific penalties – Fine already paid by petitioner under the Act – Court noted that continuing the case served no useful purpose [Paras 12-16].

Decision – Petition Allowed – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed – Recognized the futility of continuing the case after a decade and multiple cancellation reports, with the petitioner having already complied with penalties under the Passports Act [Para 16].

Land Acquisition – Market Value Assessment – Uniformity – Appellant challenged the assessment of market value for a narrow strip of land acquired for a road – Reference Court’s reliance on sale exemplars and judicial determinations questioned – High Court held that sale exemplars are more reliable than judicial determinations, which can vary based on evidence – Emphasized the importance of considering specific characteristics of the acquired land, such as location and use potential, and avoiding reliance on small residential plot sales when assessing large tracts of agricultural land [Paras 3, 8.1-8.7].

Compensation – Severance Damages – Severance of land due to acquisition – Court recognized entitlement to severance damages when landholdings are split – Applied a thumb rule of 20% compensation for smaller unacquired land parcels, restricted to those under 5 acres, to account for practical difficulties in cultivation and irrigation [Para 8.15].

Government Policies – Minimum Floor Rates – Consideration of state policy decisions on floor rates for land acquisition – Court acknowledged and applied government policies establishing minimum compensation rates for land acquired post-notification, reflecting market value adjustments over time [Paras 8.18-8.20].

Decision – Appeals by HSIIDC allowed; appeals by landowners dismissed – Reassessment of market value to Rs. 14,52,010 per acre considering proportionate increase from policy decision dates – Emphasis on appropriate, just, and balanced compensation reflecting true market value and public interest [Para 10].

Constitutional Law – Protection of Life and Liberty – Live-in Relationship – Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Petitioners, adults in a live-in relationship, sought protection from threats posed by disapproving relatives – One petitioner was still legally married to another individual, complicating their situation – Court held that the protection of life and liberty is a paramount right under the Constitution – Directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran, to take appropriate action on the petitioners' representation for protection [Paras 1-14].

Protection of Life and Liberty – Judicial Precedents – Petitioners relied on previous judgments granting protection in similar live-in relationship cases – Court reaffirmed that individuals in live-in relationships are entitled to the same protection of life and liberty as married couples – Emphasized that personal safety cannot be compromised due to societal or familial disapproval [Paras 3-5, 10].

Right to Life – Major's Right to Choose Partner – Court highlighted the fundamental right of adults to choose their partners and live with them, irrespective of social norms – Right to life and liberty includes the right to live with a partner of one’s choice, underscoring the inviolability of personal autonomy [Paras 10-11].

Judicial Approach – Interim Protection – The Court granted interim protection without delving into the legality of the relationship – Maintained focus on immediate threat to life and liberty, ensuring that the personal safety of the petitioners was addressed promptly [Para 13].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Respondent No. 2, Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran, directed to consider the petitioners' representation and take appropriate action for their protection, while clarifying that this order does not preclude the State from proceeding against the petitioners in any other legal matter [Para 14].

Quashing of FIR and Conviction – Valid Compromise – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Held, the High Court has the power to quash an FIR and set aside a conviction on the basis of a valid compromise between the parties – This is permissible even if the offences are non-compoundable and the trial has concluded – Compromise must be genuine, voluntary, and without coercion [Paras 16-18].

 Principles of Justice and Compromise – The compromise is considered in the interest of peace and amity between the parties – The Court must evaluate the nature of the offence, the voluntary nature of the compromise, and the absence of coercion – Offences of a private nature, especially those involving minor injuries, are suitable for quashing based on compromise [Paras 12-17].

 Case References – Supreme Court and High Court Precedents – Ramgopal &Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Highlights the High Court’s power to quash proceedings post-conviction if a genuine compromise is reached – Considers factors such as the nature of the offence, injury severity, and voluntary nature of the compromise [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Petition Allowed – FIR No. 76 dated 28.03.2016, registered under Sections 323, 452, 506, and 34 IPC at Police Station Sector 39, U.T. Chandigarh, and all consequential proceedings are quashed – The judgment and order of sentence dated 14.12.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, are set aside.