Tenancy Law – Statutory Extinction of Tenancy – Section 2(g), West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Eviction – Judgment on Admission – Original tenant Suresh Chawla died in 2004 – His widow inherited tenancy and died in 2021 – Respondent-son continued in possession without paying rent since January 2010 – No fresh or independent tenancy created in favour of respondent – Five-year statutory protection under Section 2(g) expired in November 2009 – Respondent's admission in a prior suit that upon his father's death he and his mother jointly inherited the tenancy triggers Section 2(g) automatically – Held: All ingredients of Section 2(g) stand fulfilled; no further evidence required; Trial Court's order dismissing application for judgment on admission is erroneous – Revision allowed; decree for khas possession directed [Paras 12–17].

Judgment on Admissions – Order 12 Rule 6 CPC – Scope and Object – Provision is enabling, discretionary and permissive – Object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment to the extent of admission without awaiting full trial – Court may act on constructive admissions or admissions which follow as natural corollary from facts and circumstances – Respondent's unconditional admission in prior litigation that tenancy was inherited upon father's death constitutes a clear admission activating statutory provisions – Held: Unnecessary procrastination of suit would cause travesty of justice particularly where respondent has not paid a single penny as rent or occupational charges since 2010 – Decree on admission directed [Paras 9–11, 15, 17].

Adverse Possession – Plea Contradictory to Tenancy – Respondent raised counter-claim of adverse possession simultaneously with claim of tenancy – Held: Plea of adverse possession is irreconcilable and contradictory with the admitted position of tenancy and is consequently rejected [Para 13].

Prior Litigation – No Estoppel – Finding in prior suit that respondent was a tenant and not a licensee does not operate as an embargo in the present suit which is founded on a distinct cause of action, namely extinction of statutory tenancy by operation of law under Section 2(g) – Prior finding is not germane to the present proceedings [Para 12].

Decision: Revision allowed – Impugned order set aside – Trial Court directed to draw decree for khas and peaceful possession – Remaining reliefs of mesne profits and costs to be adjudicated by Trial Court in accordance with law.

UAPA – Section 43-D(5) – Bail – Prima Facie Standard – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 – Appellants arrested between 21-22.10.2021 and in custody for over four years – Charged as OGWs and hybrid cadres for TRF, alleged to have shared extremist content, propagated IS ideology and attended radicalising lectures – Trial Court rejected bail in March 2023 – Charges framed in July 2024 under Sections 120B, 121A IPC and Section 18 UAPA; discharged of Sections 20, 38, 39 and 40 UAPA – Prosecution proposes to examine 359 witnesses, only 12 examined – Trial likely to take decades at present pace – Held: Appellants have met the test for bail as laid down in Gulfisha Fatima – Role attributed predominantly digital and non-violent – No allegation of creating groups or independently sharing content – Key prosecution witness X-8 failed to identify accused no. 14 before Trial Court – Continued detention disproportionate given the limited role attributed – Appeals allowed – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions [Paras 49-59].

Section 43-D(5) UAPA – Scope of Inquiry – Structured Test – The expression "prima facie true" mandates a threshold judicial inquiry, neither perfunctory nor adjudicatory – Inquiry is accused-specific and directed to individual role and attribution – Bail stage is not a forum for evaluating defences or conducting a mini-trial – Court must examine: (i) whether prosecution material discloses a prima facie case satisfying statutory ingredients; (ii) whether role attributed reflects a real and meaningful nexus to unlawful/terrorist activity as distinct from mere association or peripheral presence; and (iii) whether the statutory threshold is crossed qua the individual accused – Where requirements are not met, the embargo on bail stands lifted [Para 45].

Article 21 – Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention – Differentiated Inquiry – All accused cannot be treated identically irrespective of their roles – Conspiracy law explaining joint liability does not answer the separate question of how long each individual's liberty may be restrained before guilt is proved – Bail adjudication requires consideration of what is attributed to each accused, how that fits within statutory ingredients, and whether continued detention serves a legitimate purpose – Differentiation is not an exception to conspiracy law but a constitutional discipline imposed upon bail jurisdiction – Where prolonged custody disproportionately burdens those with limited roles, the balance between individual liberty and collective security may call for conditional release [Para 47].

Terrorist Activity – Ideological Alignment vs. Operational Participation – Possession of Extremist Digital Content – Sympathy for a cause or possession of literature and digital content associated with a banned organisation does not by itself constitute membership of such organisation or active participation in its terrorist activities, absent a demonstrated nexus to actual terrorist acts – Distinction between ideological alignment and operational participation is constitutionally significant – Material found on digital devices propagating anti-national content may not justify continuation of prolonged detention at trial stage where appellants are not alleged to be creators of such content or to have independently disseminated it [Para 53].

Bail Conditions – UAPA Matters – Bail granted subject to: personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; no travel abroad without permission; surrender of passports; weekly attendance before SHO; no contact with witnesses; no joining of social media groups circulating anti-national material; no dissemination of such material; full cooperation with trial; no media comments – Health condition of appellant Haris Nisar Langoo (cervical spondylosis) noted as additional relevant factor though not independently decisive [Paras 56, 60].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned order of Special Court (NIA) dated 03.03.2023 set aside – Appellants directed to be released on bail subject to conditions specified – Observations not to be construed as expression on merits of the case [Paras 59-64].

Municipal/Planning Law – Unauthorised Construction – Demolition Order – Applicable Law – Jurisdiction – Petitioner constructed a dwelling house on a leasehold plot within the BDA planning area pursuant to development permission granted by the Burdwan Development Authority subject to compliance with the LUDCP – Sub-Divisional Officer directed demolition under Section 23(5) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 – Held: Once the plot falls within the BDA planning area and development permission is granted under the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979, the provisions of Section 23 of the Panchayat Act cease to apply – Alleged contravention of LUDCP must be dealt with exclusively under Sections 52 and 53 of the Act of 1979 – Impugned demolition orders are without jurisdiction and unsustainable [Paras 6–11].

Overriding Effect – West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979 – Section 137 – Section 137 of the Act of 1979 gives overriding effect to its provisions over any inconsistent law – Development carried out in contravention of LUDCP conditions attracts penal provisions under Section 52 read with mandatory notice procedure under Section 53 – No notice under Section 53 was served upon the petitioner before passing the demolition orders – Orders therefore do not conform to the mandatory procedural requirements of law [Paras 8–11].

Mandatory Notice – Section 53 of the Act of 1979 – Prerequisite to Demolition – Before directing demolition or alteration of any building on the ground of deviation from LUDCP, the Planning Authority or Development Authority is mandatorily required to serve a notice under Section 53 upon the owner specifying the steps to be taken within one month – Non-compliance with this mandatory requirement vitiates the demolition orders [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Orders dated 6th October, 2023 and 15th October, 2025 set aside – BDA directed to deal with the issue in accordance with Sections 52 and 53 of the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979 – No order as to costs.

Service Law – Departmental Proceedings – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Effect on Disciplinary Action – Constable dismissed from service on charges of misconduct arising out of alleged involvement in narcotic trafficking under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act – Criminal court acquitted the respondent recording categorical finding that prosecution failed to establish his involvement and that plea of alibi stood proved by cogent documentary and oral evidence – Disciplinary authority proceeded to dismiss despite acquittal, relying on same set of witnesses whose testimony was discarded by the criminal court – Single Judge set aside dismissal and directed reinstatement – Held: Where the foundation of the departmental proceedings rests on the same factual matrix as the criminal case and the same witnesses whose evidence was rejected by the criminal court form the basis of the inquiry, the departmental proceedings are based on "no evidence" and are unsustainable – Writ Appeal dismissed [Paras 3–21].

Plea of Alibi – Established by Cogent Evidence – Effect on Departmental Proceedings – Respondent established during criminal trial that on the date of alleged offence he was undergoing official training at Phulbani from 25.05.2015 to 30.05.2015 – Training records and testimony of D.W.1 accepted by the trial court – Criminal court recorded that respondent was not even present at the spot – Inquiry officer relied on the very same witnesses whose statements before the criminal court were rejected – Held: Once the plea of alibi is judicially accepted and attains finality, the entire genesis of the departmental charge stands washed away on facts – Departmental findings based on no evidence [Paras 17–20].

Judicial Review – Scope in Disciplinary Matters – Perversity of Findings – Appellants contended that the Single Judge exceeded permissible limits of judicial review by re-appreciating evidence – Held: High Court's interference was not by way of appellate re-appreciation but on the ground that the findings of the disciplinary authority were based on no evidence, being premised entirely on witnesses whose version stood judicially discredited – Interference was warranted and cannot be faulted on law or facts [Paras 13–14, 20].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Order of Single Judge setting aside dismissal and directing reinstatement with all consequential service and financial benefits upheld.

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Co-sharers – Entitlement to Similar Compensation – Execution Petition – Execution petition filed by petitioner-landowner seeking compensation at par with co-sharers in acquired land was dismissed by the Executing Court solely on the ground that petitioner had not preferred any reference under Section 18 or 28-A of the Act – Held: The issue stands concluded by the Supreme Court in Ramphal & Ors. vs. Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 391-398 of 2026, decided on 13.01.2026), wherein co-sharers were held entitled to similar compensation as awarded to co-owners, though interest was restricted to five years reckoned backwards from the date of the Supreme Court's order – Impugned order set aside – Matter remitted for fresh adjudication [Paras 5–8].

Interest on Compensation – Restriction – Co-sharers entitled to compensation as determined under the award passed under Section 18 or as modified by the High Court or Supreme Court in appellate jurisdiction along with interest for a period of five years only reckoned backwards from the date of the Supreme Court's order in Ramphal's case – Not entitled to interest for any other period – Disbursement to be made within stipulated time frame – Default in adherence to timeline to attract interest at 9% per annum [Para 6].

Decision: Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 23.12.2025 set aside – Matter remitted to Executing Court for fresh adjudication – If petitioner found to be co-sharer in acquired land parcels, compensation with statutory benefits and interest to be released within time period stipulated in Ramphal's case.

Civil Law – Oral Partition – Burden of Proof – Revenue Record – Plaintiffs claimed oral family partition of June 1968 between Bhagat Singh and Tehal Singh in presence of village respectables, allotting 25 Kanal 19 Marla Barani and 17 Kanal 5 Marla Chahi land to Bhagat Singh, and 45 Kanal 6 Marla Barani land to Tehal Singh – Said partition never reflected in revenue record – Suit for declaration and possession dismissed by Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently – Held: Oral partition is legally permissible and non-entry in revenue record is not conclusive, but burden to prove such partition lies squarely on the party asserting it – Plaintiffs failed to discharge this burden – Oral evidence found unreliable and witnesses introduced inconsistencies regarding nature of partition – Non-entry in revenue record, when coupled with absence of reliable evidence and inconsistent conduct of parties, is a relevant circumstance – Concurrent findings based on holistic appreciation of entire evidence, not merely on absence of revenue entries [Paras 11-14].

Bona Fide Purchaser – Notice of Unrecorded Arrangement – Defendant No. 1 Harnam Singh purchased half share of suit land from Darshan Singh, a recorded co-sharer, vide sale deed dated 22.12.1980 – He was duly entered as co-sharer in revenue record and obtained possession through partition proceedings conducted by competent authority – Plaintiff's assertion that defendant had prior knowledge of oral partition by virtue of residing in same village, held unsubstantiated – Mere residence in same village cannot lead to inference of notice of a private and unrecorded arrangement – Defendant No. 1 rightly held to be bona fide purchaser [Para 15].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Scope of Interference – Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse or based on misreading of evidence – No perversity or illegality demonstrated in present case – Findings of Courts below well reasoned and supported by evidence – Once plea of oral partition fails, entire foundation of plaintiffs' case collapses and challenge to sale deed executed by co-sharer cannot be sustained [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Substantial questions of law answered against appellants – Regular Second Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Para 18].

Criminal Law – NIA Act, 2008 – Maintainability of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Application – Refusal to Discharge – Section 21(1) – Applicants charged under Sections 121-A, 153-A and 295-A IPC investigated by UP Police – Special Judge NIA rejected discharge application – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed challenging the refusal to discharge – Preliminary objection raised that such application is not maintainable in view of Section 21(1) of the NIA Act, 2008 which provides that an appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence or order not being an interlocutory order of a Special Court to the High Court – Held: Since the order of refusal to discharge has been passed by the Special Judge NIA, an appeal lies under Section 21(1) of the NIA Act, 2008 – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable – Application rejected as not maintainable [Paras 16, 19, 22, 25–26].

NIA Act, 2008 – Applicability – Scheduled Offence – State Investigation – Applicants contended that since investigation was conducted by UP Police without entrusting the case to NIA under Sections 6 or 7 of the Act, the NIA Act, 2008 has no application and trial before the Special NIA Court is without jurisdiction – Held: The question of applicability of the NIA Act, 2008 to the applicants can be examined only when the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS is maintainable – Since the application is not maintainable, the Court does not go into the said submission – Applicants at liberty to seek remedy under Section 21(1) of the NIA Act, 2008 [Paras 22–26].

Decision: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. rejected as not maintainable – Applicants at liberty to seek remedy under Section 21(1) of the NIA Act, 2008.

Personal Liberty – Live-in Relationship – Subsisting Marriage – No Decree of Divorce – Petitioners, both already married, claimed to be living together as husband and wife and sought protection from alleged threat by respondent No. 4 — No proof of joint account, financial security, joint property, joint expenditure or solemnization of marriage after divorce placed on record — Held: Right to personal liberty is not absolute — Freedom of one person cannot encroach upon the statutory right of a spouse — Persons in subsisting marriages cannot enter into a live-in relationship without first obtaining a decree of divorce from a court of competent jurisdiction [Paras 6, 7].

Live-in Relationship – Relationships Not Recognised – Bigamy – A relationship in the nature of marriage is not recognised where either party is already married without divorce — Polygamy, bigamous marriage and adulterous relationships cannot constitute a valid live-in relationship — Any marriage during subsistence of a prior marriage constitutes an offence under Section 494 IPC read with Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Such relationships are criminal offences [Para 8].

Writ of Mandamus – Conditions – Legal Right – A writ of mandamus can be issued only where the petitioner has a subsisting legal right to the performance of a legal duty — Protection sought in the present case may amount to protection against commission of an offence under Sections 494/495 IPC — Writ of mandamus cannot be issued contrary to law or to defeat a statutory penal provision — Held: Petitioners have no legally protected and judicially enforceable right to seek protection [Para 9].

Liberty – Recourse to Police – Petitioners at liberty to approach the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police with a detailed representation if subjected to any act of violence — Concerned authority directed to verify contents and act in accordance with law to secure life and limb of petitioners [Para 11].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of — Protection declined — Petitioners directed to approach the SSP/SP concerned if subjected to any act of violence.

Service Law – Pension – Counting of Past Service – Rule 26, M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 – Petitioner initially appointed with MPEB in 1981, subsequently appointed as Sub-Inspector in Police Department in 1988 after obtaining NOC from MPEB – Retired as Inspector in 2017 – Claim for counting past service with MPEB towards pension declined by District Pension Officer on the ground that Rule 26 does not cover service rendered with MPEB as it is not State Government service – Held: Service conditions of MPEB employees were determined by the State Government since the Board was constituted and its members appointed by the State Government under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and MPEB had power to frame service regulations – Objection of District Pension Officer overruled – Petitioner entitled to count service from 21/06/1981 to 15/01/1988 towards qualifying service – Petition allowed [Paras 9-19, 24].

Qualifying Service – Rule 3(p) – Scope and Construction – Rule 3(p) defines qualifying service as service under the State Government but its latter part extends it to service qualifying under any other order or rule in force – Cumulative reading makes clear that service rendered under any pensionable arrangement, including one governed by rules other than the 1976 Rules, qualifies – When pension rules are capable of more than one interpretation, courts must lean in favour of the employee [Paras 11-13, 17].

Prior Permission – NOC from Earlier Employer – Objection that petitioner did not take up subsequent appointment with prior permission of earlier employer – Rejected – NOC granted by MPEB on 13/11/1987 specifically stated no objection to petitioner's selection as Sub-Inspector – Application also forwarded through Board's authority – Petitioner served for about 30 years before retirement – Raising objection of absence of prior permission at this stage not permissible – Prior permission to be presumed unless State establishes contrary [Paras 20-23].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Objection raised by District Pension Officer overruled – Respondents including District Pension Officer, Shivpuri, directed to process petitioner's claim for counting service from 21/06/1981 to 15/01/1988 in pursuance of order dated 15/05/2018 [Para 24].